3 ms·

> The licensing stuff is tangential. Yes, it's their stated reason, but it's a cover story. So it's a pure coincidence they stopped updating gcc in OSX right w

by deng 12y ago

> The licensing stuff is tangential. Yes, it's their stated reason, but it's a cover story. So it's a pure coincidence they stopped updating gcc in OSX right when it moved to GPLv3? And the reason they stopped updating bash, Emacs, etc., and dumped Samba, is also because those projects didn't move in the direction they wanted?

DannyBee 12y ago
I can only speak to GCC because I actually know what happened there, and actually talked to the people making the decision. You talk about the rest as if it actually mattered to their developers. They stopped updating X11 and java too. Have you considered that they stopped to look and just stopped updating the stuff that didn't matter to them anymore?
- deng 12y ago
  For years developers begged Apple to update gcc, and they did not do it. Mind you, that was at a time when Clang was not nearly where it is today. They dumped Samba and replaced it with a new development of their own that was vastly inferior. They still ship an ancient bash 3.2.51, although developers wanted a new version for years. They even backported the shellshock patch for that. I draw my conclusions from those facts, not from some hearsay. I can't believe you actually think that the GPLv3 is a "cover story". A cover for what? That they think they can do it better? Why would they need a cover story for that? Why would they even care?
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Past that, you literally ignored the main point: They stopped updating plenty of opensource stuff, you've just picked out the GPLv3 stuff and said "it's all because of this"
    - deng 12y ago
      > They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Not true. They switched to clang with OS X 10.7. That was 2011. At that time, their gcc fork, based on 4.2 and carefully avoiding any GPLv3 code, was already ancient and loaded with problems. Past that, you literally ignored the main point: why would they need a "cover story" in the first place?
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        Your timeline is way off. llvm-gcc was introduced with Xcode 3.1, and clang/llvm in xcode 3.2. It targeted 10.5. This was well prior to 2011 , and seeded well before it was released. Again, you don't have to believe me, Chris's resume shows this: http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple "In this time period, my group expanded use of LLVM within Apple, supported new clients, built new features, and extended LLVM in many ways. We shipped llvm-gcc 4.2 in the Xcode 3.1 and major improvements for it in the Xcode 3.1.1 release." That time period was in 2006-2008. Apple made a decision that it was going to move if it could meet certain performance goals in the 2006/2007 time frame. GPLv3 was not released until June of 2007. In any case, this argument is pointless, you can just ask Chris why they moved.

by deng 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago

I can only speak to GCC because I actually know what happened there, and actually talked to the people making the decision. You talk about the rest as if it actually mattered to their developers. They stopped updating X11 and java too. Have you considered that they stopped to look and just stopped updating the stuff that didn't matter to them anymore?

deng 12y ago
For years developers begged Apple to update gcc, and they did not do it. Mind you, that was at a time when Clang was not nearly where it is today. They dumped Samba and replaced it with a new development of their own that was vastly inferior. They still ship an ancient bash 3.2.51, although developers wanted a new version for years. They even backported the shellshock patch for that. I draw my conclusions from those facts, not from some hearsay. I can't believe you actually think that the GPLv3 is a "cover story". A cover for what? That they think they can do it better? Why would they need a cover story for that? Why would they even care?
- DannyBee 12y ago
  They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Past that, you literally ignored the main point: They stopped updating plenty of opensource stuff, you've just picked out the GPLv3 stuff and said "it's all because of this"
  - deng 12y ago
    > They stopped updating GCC precisely when they decided, and announced, they were moving to llvm/clang. Not true. They switched to clang with OS X 10.7. That was 2011. At that time, their gcc fork, based on 4.2 and carefully avoiding any GPLv3 code, was already ancient and loaded with problems. Past that, you literally ignored the main point: why would they need a "cover story" in the first place?
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      Your timeline is way off. llvm-gcc was introduced with Xcode 3.1, and clang/llvm in xcode 3.2. It targeted 10.5. This was well prior to 2011 , and seeded well before it was released. Again, you don't have to believe me, Chris's resume shows this: http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple http://nondot.org/sabre/Resume.html#Apple "In this time period, my group expanded use of LLVM within Apple, supported new clients, built new features, and extended LLVM in many ways. We shipped llvm-gcc 4.2 in the Xcode 3.1 and major improvements for it in the Xcode 3.1.1 release." That time period was in 2006-2008. Apple made a decision that it was going to move if it could meet certain performance goals in the 2006/2007 time frame. GPLv3 was not released until June of 2007. In any case, this argument is pointless, you can just ask Chris why they moved.