David Kastrup writes:
> e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>
>> David Kastrup's recent question on emacs-devel motivates me to bring
>> up a larger related question I've been meaning to open for a while:
>> Are the FSF's goals best served by continuing to technically restrict
>> GCC?
>>
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2014, e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) wrote:
>
> > I think it is time to question whether the anti-plugins policy is
> > still the best way to accomplish this.
>
> Err... Excuse me, but what anti-plugins policy are you talking about?
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
> testament t
> The *political* aspects are dictating the *technical* aspects.
Perhaps.
> So... like it or not, that makes this list exactly the right place to
> have this discussion.
No because the *people* that decide the political and technical aspects
are different and this list is for the latter, not the
On 23/01/14 12:42, Michael Witten wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
the... list is for technical rather than political discussion
That's just it; that's the whole point.
The *political* aspects are dictating the *technical* aspects.
Not for clang they aren't, so
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> the... list is for technical rather than political discussion
That's just it; that's the whole point.
The *political* aspects are dictating the *technical* aspects.
So... like it or not, that makes this list exactly the right place to
hav
Hi David,
> At any rate, if you want to bash the strategies of the GNU project,
these lists are the wrong place to go. Try doing it on the Clang list
though I am skeptical that they do not have better things to do as well.
the Clang list is for technical rather than political discussion, as y
Michael Witten writes:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
>> testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc,
>> and how clang is fostering non-free software.
>
> What does it m
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
> testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc,
> and how clang is fostering non-free software.
What does it matter whether clang fosters non-fr
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 15:19 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Therefore, I point out that FSF can no longer prevent proprietary
> vendors from plugging into a free compiler to improve their tools.
[snip]
> I also think it bears noticing that nobody outside of Microsoft seems
> to particularly want to
"Eric S. Raymond" writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor :
>> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
>> sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
>> has supported them for a few releases now.
>
> Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was
Ian Lance Taylor :
> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
> sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
> has supported them for a few releases now.
Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was even controversial.
If I have fail
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it make sense, then, to entirely drop the factoring
> restrictions from GCC so it can compete for developer attention more
> effectively with clang?
>
> Before clang existed, back when GCC had a near monopoly in its
> competitiv
> up a larger related question I've been meaning to open for a while: Are the
> FSF's goals best served by continuing to technically restrict GCC?
Let me repeat: please stop discussing such things on this list.
There are things like gnu.misc.discuss for that.
Stefan
On Jan 21, 2014, e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) wrote:
> I think it is time to question whether the anti-plugins policy is
> still the best way to accomplish this.
Err... Excuse me, but what anti-plugins policy are you talking about?
The runtime license exception designed to make room for G
e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
> David Kastrup's recent question on emacs-devel motivates me to bring
> up a larger related question I've been meaning to open for a while:
> Are the FSF's goals best served by continuing to technically restrict
> GCC?
I don't think that's even a sensib
David Kastrup's recent question on emacs-devel motivates me to bring
up a larger related question I've been meaning to open for a while: Are the
FSF's goals best served by continuing to technically restrict GCC?
This is a question in which I have some positive stake. Yes, I
continue to be opposed
17 matches
Mail list logo
