Defending GCC considered futile

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by DannyBee on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @03:40PM (#9029753)

"You are certainly aware that the vast majority of code is under strict restrictions and will be leveraged for competitive/controlling purposes rather than being shared. Employees wishing to freely contribute code in these domains will have their requests denied. "

?????? None of this is true. I mean, literally none of this. I don't even know where to begin.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by throwaway90999 on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @04:11PM (#9029922)

This isn't a complicated statement. Why are you struggling with it?

Google does not open source the VAST majority of their code -- it remains tightly restricted. Surely agree this is an accurate statement?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by DannyBee on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @01:24PM (#9034515)

Because it's an incredibly vague statement that is open to many interpretations?

As written, actually, i don't agree with it.

Google has open sourced > 100 million lines of source code, depending on how you count.

I can't tell you what percent this is, but it is quite significant

It is the vast majority of a number of products, and not the vast majority of a number of other products.

In fact, for some subsidiaries, all of the code is open source. For some, it isn't.

So your statement depends on a lot - who are you counting, what is "their code" (Code we've written, code we've modified, or code we use), etc

If you make a detailed enough statement, i'd probably agree. But as written, there are plenty of cases where google open sources the vast majority of it's code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by throwaway90999 on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @11:57PM (#9037468)

If you insist on continuing to be disingenuous we can simply end the conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]