On 4/16/2021 10:08 PM, Frosku wrote:
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. It's
just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in Californi
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> > >
> > > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not
> > > prescriptive. It's
> > > just a reference to the fact tha
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> > It's
> > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> > any
> > cult
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> It's
> just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> any
> culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:15 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> > talented people who are more
Snapshot gcc-9-20210416 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20210416/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
> On Apr 16, 2021, at 2:41 PM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
> that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
> allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
> without sharing p
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:23 AM Ville Voutilainen via Gcc
wrote:
> On the first part, other people have touched on it already,
> but the fear of a dreaded non-free software vendor co-opting
> GCC as a library to a non-free project has resulted in GCC
> being unsuitable to be used as a library in f
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 23:42 Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and
> technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or
> unwelcome unrelated attention).
>
Is this not the case on gcc-patches?
>
On 4/16/2021 9:57 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
Hello world,
realising that my e-mails may have done more harm than good,
I will now unsubscribe from the gcc mailing list, so please
don't expect a reply unless you copy me in.
I don't think your emails have done any harm. I find them quit
> The authority of the FSF, GNU and RMS over GCC is and has been a
> fiction for decades,
For the most part, I agree.
> It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what the
> actual relations are,
Why? What would that gain? I go back to my analogy of the British Queen.
What would be ga
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
> within the project'
From reading most of this thread, it is clear to me that
- The authority of the FSF, GNU and RMS over GCC is and has been a
fiction for decades,
- This fiction has been erased from the official web page of the
project,
- It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what th
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:09 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor :
> > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
>
> I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> up
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:49 AM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
wrote:
> > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> > From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> > To: "Christopher Dimech"
> > Cc: "GCC Development"
> > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 20
Hello world,
realising that my e-mails may have done more harm than good,
I will now unsubscribe from the gcc mailing list, so please
don't expect a reply unless you copy me in.
Best regards
Thomas
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 2:42 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe via Gcc"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Kalamatee wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > > The "small minority of developers"
Kalamatee wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for
public
review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair
and
technical
Hello,
Sorry for lags but im across the pond. Thanks for bearing with me.
Spot on emphasis.
Yes agree with you fully BOTH rms and his opponents should watch the
tongues a little more possibly if goodwilled towards fsf to make my point
weakest. Albeit the weight of guilt of theirs looks slightly bi
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 16:22, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> Many do not contribute because they do not have time, resources or support.
Yes? And? Even if GCC detaches itself from FSF, those who can contribute will
continue to contribute. And those who talk about contributing but
don't contribute
wi
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > > The "small minority of developers"
> Due to their being paid for the work. Have no doubt that if others
> were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
> contributors. Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.
This is a non-sequitur.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> > seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> > considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.
>
> Due to their being paid for the work. Have no dou
This is not new, this was what his FSF put out four or five days ago that that
a lot of people found unacceptable.
Get a load of this, emphasis mine:
> RMS acknowledges that he has made mistakes. He has sincere regrets,
> **especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted t
Hello,
I somehow got the feeling the truth and reason have won although there were
many odds against them.
https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman
Big thanks and congratulations to fsf board and rms himself.
Wonder what wokistanis gonna do now. Wonder whet
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 10:16 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen via Gcc"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Subject: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> Huge apologies for mis-sending this to gcc-patches,
> my email client makes suggestions when I attempt
> to send to a gcc li
Huge apologies for mis-sending this to gcc-patches,
my email client makes suggestions when I attempt
to send to a gcc list. :D
The actual suggestion is at the end; skip straight to it if you wish.
>Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you express
exactly what a lot of pe
On 16.04.21 10:54, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
This forum (barring the current discussion where, frankly, the dissent
is not
coming from people who are actually active contributors),
Maybe I should have been less diplomatic :-)
I dissent, strongly.
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 10:39 AM BST, Kalamatee via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor :
> > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
> >
> > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
>
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor :
> > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
>
> I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> upper
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
to short-stop
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 7:37 AM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> From the discussion, it seems that there is concern about some of the
> the technical directions imposed on gcc by the FSF. If we want to
> resolve the current crisis without causing a fatal split within the
> gcc community, we need
34 matches
Mail list logo
