On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, KatolaZ wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:39:11PM +0100, devuan...@spamgourmet.net wrote: > > RMS admits that he wrote GCC as an interdependent hairball, simply to > > make it impossible to reuse parts of it in commercial applications. So > > I doubt that RMS will end up condemning "hairballs" in GPLv4 (or > > later). That change would require him to fight a project he started > > and to push it into a direction he is not at all comfortable with. > > > > This sounds strange and new at the same time, since GCC was indeed > designed to be portable and ported to several architectures since from > the beginning. Do you have any quote by RMS or by any guy who has > contributed to gcc to support your statement? I don't think that GCC > is a hairball, to be honest.
This is not the first post in which this spamgourmet account is spreading FUD. We may need to react to this beyond argumenting. Actually, I'd be grateful if you, golinux and a few others can share the burden of keeping trolls away from the list, as now I'm quite convinced that if we go the moderation way we better do it full on and try to keep around only the posts that are worth reading. ciao
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
