News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by bsiemon on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:22PM (#3086811)
This headline grossly misstates the content of the post. Apple wanted a closed source front end that could be linked with the open source gcc internal/backend. At no point would the existing GCC code ever become proprietary under this flawed scheme.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by simcop2387 on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:39AM (#3087107)
This wasn't Apple at this time. This was after Jobs had been ousted and had gone with NeXT.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by ra on Saturday October 08, 2011 @08:27AM (#3087765)
Also note that RMS wrote this in 1993
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by RexRollman on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:23PM (#3086814)
Although I do not care for everything Stallman says and does, I do appreciate his consistency.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by zitterbewegung on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:20AM (#3087055)
And eventually Apple starts supporting LLVM and the rest is history. Less and less of GCC is being used by Apple these days.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by schrototo on Saturday October 08, 2011 @02:34AM (#3087317)
And of course, LLVM is free and open source as well... just without the GPL.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by rat on Saturday October 08, 2011 @05:10AM (#3087536)
And with proprietary frontends(like flash)
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by pornel on Saturday October 08, 2011 @06:03AM (#3087596)
And I think that's fine with RMS — Apple didn't get GNU's work for free for their proprietary IDE and had to develop their own software.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by smoyer on Saturday October 08, 2011 @07:22AM (#3087677)
I'm just not wasting time reading anything RMS has written ... Thanks for the memories but:

- You've jumped the shark.

- You're no longer relevant.

- You've alienated so many of your fans.

- You've pushed zealotry to a new level.

- You've turned a conversation into a continuous rant.

And the sad part is that I suspect you'll never look back on what you did accomplish and feel satisfaction. You'll just continue raging against the goals you couldn't reach.

Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by Joeboy on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:20AM (#3087387)
Registration required. Could somebody paste or summarize the link? Thanks.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by cpach on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:07AM (#3087445)
It's the second message in this document: http://www.anonymous-insider.net/free-software/research/1993...

The first message also gives a little more context.

Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by jey on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:57PM (#3086869)
Why didn't Apple just have their front-end emit GNU C with #line directives?
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by simcop2387 on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:42AM (#3087111)
It would have probably been far more annoying to compile to something like that. I've not programmed in Objective C but I believe that it was designed to avoid some of the issues that arose out of C++ being originally a preprocessor like that on top of C. Given that they wanted to do that, having to compile to some kind of IR, then to C, they would have likely had a much harder time getting the code optimized in any reasonable manner. I would also imagine that this would make debugging any part of the compiler that ended up producing incorrect code far more difficult to do.
Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by sambeau on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:47AM (#3087248)
Again, this was NeXT; not Apple.

I believe that the early Objective-C compiler did emit C.

Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by benatkin on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:52AM (#3087134)
Based on the domain next to the headline, I thought Stallman was posting to Google Plus for a minute. Heh.

(I was surprised to see Douglas Crockford posting there.)

Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by SeoxyS on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:34AM (#3087097)
Keep in mind, Stallman is the douche who wrote this:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.

I think he's lost the right to offer opinions about Steve or Apple.

Re:Stallman: GPL ramifications and purpose by scq on Saturday October 08, 2011 @01:02AM (#3087164)
Stallman wrote this in 1993.