Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

android.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#241

Post by malka »

micampe wrote: post #145
djsumdog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're missing the point of the GNU GPL. The original idea behind the FSFs idea of open source was an ecosystem where every new development resulted in more open and free code. We're talking about people who truly believed in getting away from commercial software entirely. There were people who felt that one day, Linux desktops could replace Windows and even high end tools like Photoshop and Final Cut wou…

> The dream of a GPL world where the software is free and you only pay for the hardware, is pretty much gone. I feel like you are missing the point of the GNU GPL.

yeah. Software can be both libre and not free (as in you have to pay for it). The only difference being that once you paid for it, you OWN it, the same as you own, say your shoes

(I was going to go for the car example, but that is less and less true. We do not own our car anymore.)

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#242

Post by pjc50 »

belorn wrote: post #135

How diverse are the CPU manufacturers for android phones? The major concern when it comes to Clang is that developers will need to buy proprietary plugins to compile open source code that depend on proprietary features, or to have application run in native speed.

They're all ARM, apart from a very few x86.

The SoC manufacturers mess around with proprietary peripherals and obstructive boot processes, but haven't messed with the actual instruction set.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#243

Post by the_ancient »

eropple wrote: post #69
_delirium wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my c…

> Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).

I think you have likely confused what the pro-FSF people say...

Likely they said it is unethical for you to distribute software with out access to the code. Which you interpreted to be against profiting since you likely believe that open source == no profit.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#244

Post by sangnoir »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #240
dragonwriter wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS -- and perhaps the FSF more generally -- seems more concerned with preventing non-Free software, with creating Free Software as a means to that end, than increasing the volume of Free Software. To RMS, non-Free software isn't just worse than Free software, its a net harm to society such that it's better to have no software than to have non-Free software. Its even often (apparently, to RMS) better to have no addit…

I wouldn't describe the FSF's position that way (they value Free Software for its own sake, and their goal is that all software should be Free Software), but even if that were their position, I'm arguing that their handling of GCC and refusal to support it as a library directly motivated the creation of LLVM and led to a scenario that better supports the creation of proprietary software. Providing a GCC library would…

> I'm arguing that their handling of GCC and refusal to support it as a library directly motivated the creation of LLVM and led to a scenario that better supports the creation of proprietary software

I'm sure they are well aware of that. I don't see how they could have handled it differently without compromising their core values. Allowing GCC to be wrapped by proprietary bits would be unconscionable since it curtails user freedom (to modify & improve the software).

The differences in core-beliefs between Apple and FSF are irreconcilable: the former is pro-Tivoization and the latter is anti-Tivoization. Your stance on Tivoization ought to be a fair indicator on which side of the fence you stand, and no side will ever be able to convince the other side: at best you can agree to disagree.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#245

Post by isolate »

sangnoir wrote: post #244
JoshTriplett wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't describe the FSF's position that way (they value Free Software for its own sake, and their goal is that all software should be Free Software), but even if that were their position, I'm arguing that their handling of GCC and refusal to support it as a library directly motivated the creation of LLVM and led to a scenario that better supports the creation of proprietary software. Providing a GCC library would…

> I'm arguing that their handling of GCC and refusal to support it as a library directly motivated the creation of LLVM and led to a scenario that better supports the creation of proprietary software I'm sure they are well aware of that. I don't see how they could have handled it differently without compromising their core values. Allowing GCC to be wrapped by proprietary bits would be unconscionable since it curtail…

You're either with us or against us?

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#246

Post by stcredzero »

anonbanker wrote: post #191
stcredzero wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original idea behind the FSFs idea of open source was an ecosystem where every new development resulted in more open and free code. So let's put it this way: The FSF didn't pivot when they had a chance to capture a larger market!

only on hacker news would someone spell "pivot", but pronounce it "sell out". I'll bask in the downvotes that comes with telling the harsh truth. I got karma to burn, folks.

No, not "sell out." Pivot. They could have served their users even better, but they didn't out of stubbornness. Now the market has spoken.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#247

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #207
JoshTriplett wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like you're missing the point of the GNU GPL. The original idea behind the FSFs idea of open source was an ecosystem where every new development resulted in more open and free code. First of all, "FSF's idea of open source"? They'd rather vigorously object to that phrasing. :) But no, that was exactly my point: I'd argue that intentionally choosing to not allow the development of a library version of GCC, ev…

RMS -- and perhaps the FSF more generally -- seems more concerned with preventing non-Free software, with creating Free Software as a means to that end, than increasing the volume of Free Software. To RMS, non-Free software isn't just worse than Free software, its a net harm to society such that it's better to have no software than to have non-Free software. Its even often (apparently, to RMS) better to have no addit…

[deleted]

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#248

Post by LukeShu »

rmstwitterbot wrote: post #225
belorn wrote: post #135

How diverse are the CPU manufacturers for android phones? The major concern when it comes to Clang is that developers will need to buy proprietary plugins to compile open source code that depend on proprietary features, or to have application run in native speed.

Requiring a license to use a compiler is straight out of RMS's (now unfortunately prophetic) article "The Right to Read" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html Majority of Android phones out there are Qualcomm Snapdragon these days, and for the foreseeable future as they just inked an exclusive deal with Samsung. MediaTek SoC was already a proprietary nightmare of unreleased kernels and toolchains except…

In "The Right to Read", "license" refers to a license from the state, like a driver's license or gun license; not a license from the vendor (a copyright license). Vendors licensing proprietary compilers isn't something that TRR predicted--it was a common practice before GCC became dominant.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#249

Post by eropple »

the_ancient wrote: post #243
eropple wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).

I think you have likely confused what the pro-FSF people say... Likely they said it is unethical for you to distribute software with out access to the code. Which you interpreted to be against profiting since you likely believe that open source == no profit.

I'm well aware of how to make money with open-source software. I do it. I am working to no longer do it, because wage slavery (be it W-2 or under the guise of "consulting") sucks.

Turns out that you need capital to do that, and the FSF's insistence that digital bits as capital is immoral is silly.

Re: Android NDK: GCC is now deprecated, everyone should be switching to Clang

#250

Post by Nononce »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #235
Nononce wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've got it backwards; In GPL, every developer is a user. This becomes apparent when you see why the GPL came into existence and what it sets out to accomplish (Safe guarding users' freedoms at the expense of the developers').

And GP's point is that a) statistically speaking, pretty much all of the users of software today are non-developers, and b) these users don't care about the freedoms that the GPL seeks to protect. Even in the small subset of users that are developers, the popularity of permissive licenses indicates that most would rather just use and open up source code without worrying about restrictions imposed by others or imposin…

I respectfully disagree.

The primary purpose of the GPL is to insure that users have the freedom to modify and redistribute the software they use should they choose to do so. Whether the user does so or not is irreverent. That's why I don't think it's a matter of whether end users care, or how large of a percentage they form of the overall user base.

Developers who decide to license their work under the GPL do so to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of their users. To that end, I think the GPL hits its mark.

Post reply on HN