Linked by Joel Dahl on Sun 30th Jan 2011 20:22 UTC
General Development The BSD licensed Portable C Compiler (PCC) is steadily on the road for a 1.0 release and is now able to compile a FreeBSD/amd64 CURRENT system with almost no changes. The current version of PCC has evolved from the original PCC developed at Bell Labs during the 1970s and has been maintained by Anders Magnusson and a small team of developers during the last decade. It has received more attention during the last few years, especially by OpenBSD and NetBSD people seeing it at as a viable option as a GCC replacement.
Permalink for comment 460396
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by bogomipz
by demetrioussharpe on Mon 31st Jan 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by bogomipz"
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

The BSD system is good technically but socially it is obsolete. The license is not strong enough and what is has brought is a lot of incompatible proprietary forks with short term goals and long term damage. In my opinion, the GNU project is socially more advanced and new developments should happen there.


I am not a member of any of the BSD groups & do not speak for them. With that being said...

Social??? BSD was never a social entity. It didn't grow into prominence based on social networking or based on people doing OS development as a hobby. BSD got it's start in academia. For those who don't know that that means, it means that BSD's origins (which set the basic mood & pace of the BSD ecosystem), are deeply rooted in being technically sound & correctly implemented. There's a heavy emphasis on solving the problem correctly the first time by using engineering techniques. This is also the reason none of the BSD groups feel the need to replace working frameworks at absurdly short intervals just because someone wants to do it another way with no true technical reasons to do so. This is real technology with real engineering behind it, social graces need not apply.

License??? The BSD license does exactly what it's supposed to do. The BSD teams aren't so heavily ego driven & paranoid that they think everyone's out to steal their code. They know that their code is good & they're generally happy just knowing that technology created by them are being widely used. This is in the original spirit of what it once meant to be a computer geek. Share & share alike. However, apparently, there are those who fear that other people will use their code without giving anything back to them. As if that's the reason they originally wrote the code in the first place. But we all know the true nature of fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to GPL based code. Which becomes a self replicating cycle, because with the viral nature of the GPL comes the viral spread of more fear.

Proprietary forks??? Licenses don't cause incompatible proprietary forks with short term goals and long term damage short-sighted programmers hobbyist who think they know better well trained software engineers cause incompatible proprietary forks with short term goals and long term damage. Let's get one thing clear. Linux is the newcomer here & the GNU community are the ones that's causing incompatibility, it's really just that simple. Standards that BSD & other *nix systems support are generally trampled on by the GNU ecosystem. It seems that the *nix world was starting to recover from all of the incompatible BS that was rampant & everyone was really starting to standardize on POSIX & other standards when GNU came & started kicking the anthill again. And to be perfectly honest, none of that is Linus's fault. It's the fault of the GNU community that latched onto his kernel after not being able to get their own kernel up and running (btw, their own kernel still hasn't arrived to the party).

Socially advanced??? This is computer science. It's not meant to be socially advanced, it's supposed to be technologically advanced, which GNU code clearly is not. If it was, maybe there would actually be a GNU OS rather than a pitiful attempt to bind GNU to Linux by calling it GNU/Linux. If Linux had never used GNU's GPL license, Linux probably still would have progressed to where it is today, however, GNU would still be on the sidelines trying to get their dead cow of a kernel up and running in a viable way.

I normally avoid the holy war between the GNU guys (who appear to want to start a fight with everyone) & the BSD guys (who actually seem to prefer writing code in comparison to fighting with the GNU guys), but this has gotten a bit ridiculous. This is the *nix community which includes everyone, not just GNU's developers & supporters. If you guys don't like the way we do things & think that our ways are outdated, then you're welcome to leave our community & stay to yourselves. Oh, & on you're way out, leave our pipes, filesystems, systemcalls, windowing system standards (well, actually you can keep that), file metaphor, & device driver style at the door. Then give plan9 back it's proc filesystem & give Linus back his kernel. See what life is like when all you have is the HURD.

Sorry for the rant & the lengthy post, but someone needs to say something. What makes things worse is that 9 times out of 10, this guy doesn't even write code!

Reply Parent Score: 3