Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

If it doesn't relate to Debian, but you still want to share it, please do it here

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 19:35

AdrianTM wrote:
If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities[...]

I haven't said that or implied it, why would you mention it if not for creating a straw-man? I responded by giving you another example of straw-man similarly constructed so that you can see that I can use your style too.

I don't know what you claim I misrepresented here, except for my initial mistake of assuming that Stallman wouldn't use Debian if he doesn't recommend it to which you brought proof that he does use it, I don't see what I misrepresented, please explain.


AdrianTM you're right, you don't seek to misrepresent others, I'm sorry I levelled that one at you. The persistently disingenuous stuff has come from another forum member and I shouldn't have seen you in the same way. I got a good build up of steam in the brain box and I vented it, please excuse me.

I found the question about GCC and Windows....well....I've said what I think already.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 19:39

Well, I admit, not all my questions are smart or relevant, but I've found that response uncalled for that's why I built a similar example to show you how you actually responded. Sorry, will try to keep my cool too.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

Postby BioTube » 2008-07-05 22:21

17 pages is a good run for what started as a troll thread, but I think it's time to let this one die. When it comes to RMS, people either love him or hate him, with no in between. Preventing a flamefest in such a discussion seems to be impossible.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.
User avatar
BioTube
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

Postby dmn_clown » 2008-07-07 01:07

julian67 wrote:But they didn't and they haven't.


Actually they are forking PCC to replace GCC http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/369/
dmn_clown
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 2006-12-03 23:40

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-07 01:46

dmn_clown wrote:
julian67 wrote:But they didn't and they haven't.


Actually they are forking PCC to replace GCC http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/369/


More power to them. They state they're not forking it, and expect it to differ only slightly in OpenBSD. It has to be good for them to have basic tools that better meet their needs. It does look like a very long term project though.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby ninjatux » 2008-07-08 05:32

BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.


Actually, BSD technically did make its own compiler. Apple technically made its own compiler. The BSD versions of GCC are quite different. Vanilla GCC is just a starting point.
Machines: Apple MacBook Pro, Dell Optiplex GX620
Running: Mac OS X Leopard, M$ Windows 7, FreeBSD 7-STABLE
User avatar
ninjatux
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-05-30 03:20
Location: North Brunswick, NJ

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-08 06:05

ninjatux wrote:
BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.


Actually, BSD technically did make its own compiler. Apple technically made its own compiler. The BSD versions of GCC are quite different. Vanilla GCC is just a starting point.


Which *BSD?

This aroused my interest because I'd never heard of it and it would surely make big news. It doesn't seem to be the case. The BSDs use GCC, it's not been forked. I'm sure various *BSD developers have contributed upstream but I can't find any claims to support what you say. I've searched NetBSD docs (as it's the oldest*) and OpenBSD (the most keen to find a different compiler) and some more general BSD and GCC info and history. I can't imagine that you mean simply installing GCC on *BSD would be to "technically make its own compiler"???? Do you mean something else?

*edit: oldest maintained free version
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby Telemachus » 2008-07-08 10:36

@ Ninjatux: The Apple version is a version of GCC, not an entirely different animal. So Apple didn't make it's own compiler, it adjusted GNU's. In fact, Apple gives credit to GNU, as they should. See the output of man gcc below. I don't have a *BSD available, but I suspect it's the same with those distros
Code: Select all
GCC(1)                                GNU                               GCC(1)

NAME
       gcc - GNU project C and C++ compiler

SYNOPSIS
       gcc [-c|-S|-E] [-std=standard]
           [-g] [-pg] [-Olevel]
           [-Wwarn...] [-pedantic]
           [-Idir...] [-Ldir...]
           [-Dmacro[=defn]...] [-Umacro]
           [-foption...] [-mmachine-option...]
           [-o outfile] infile...

       Only the most useful options are listed here; see below for the remain-
       der.  g++ accepts mostly the same options as gcc.

       In Apple's version of GCC, both cc and gcc are actually symbolic links
       to a compiler named like gcc-version; which compiler is linked to may
       be changed using the command gcc_select.  Similarly, c++ and g++ are
       links to a compiler named like g++-version.

       Note that Apple's GCC includes a number of extensions to standard GCC
       (flagged below with ``APPLE ONLY''), and that not all generic GCC
       options are available or supported on Darwin / Mac OS X.  In particu-
       lar, Apple does not currently support the compilation of Fortran, Ada,
       or Java, although there are third parties who have made these work.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System
User avatar
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

Postby ninjatux » 2008-07-09 01:24

I never said any of the BSDs or Apple actually forked GCC. I said they used vanilla GCC as a starting point. Take vanilla GCC and compile it on Mac OS X via MacPorts or some other system. Then use that to compile a program, and compile the same program with Apple GCC. There's a reason why so many people (incorrectly) say that Apple's GCC is broken compared to vanilla GCC. It has just been heavily modded to suit the Darwin system. Some programs that normally compile correctly with vanilla GCC miscompile with Apple's GCC. In Apple's case, I'm sure. In the BSDs' case, it might take a bit of hunting.
Machines: Apple MacBook Pro, Dell Optiplex GX620
Running: Mac OS X Leopard, M$ Windows 7, FreeBSD 7-STABLE
User avatar
ninjatux
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-05-30 03:20
Location: North Brunswick, NJ

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-09 02:26

gcc-local - local modifications to gcc describes modifications made to GCC in OpenBSD. At http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/current/changelog the Debian changelogs can be viewed. I'm absolutely certain that Suse and Red Hat do the same.

In no way can any of these be described as new compiler, or anything except GCC with OS specific patches and some fixes the developers feel they need to make. Debian is even famous (or notorious depending on your point of view) for making numerous such changes to packages.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby garrincha » 2008-07-11 17:36

Maurice Green on Usain Bolt's 9.58: "The Earth stopped for a second, and he went to Mars."
User avatar
garrincha
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: 2006-06-02 16:38

Re: Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

Postby hackspirit » 2017-02-18 14:43

I think RMS is purist and extremist GNU man. He does not tolerates shady things in his codes. And that why we like them. Just like Pure Blue should be as pure as #0000ff, he is just the way we can take reference from his GNU philosophy. Although not practical 100% but he should hold the torch of pure GNU-man.
hackspirit
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 2017-02-11 15:55

Previous

Return to Offtopic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

fashionable