To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"No thank you. You misread me if you *re-read the quote* you will see that it says "BSD kernel distributions" which all contain GCC and Gnome"
Actually, Gnome is not part of FreeBSD core, it is part of the ports collection. I cannot comment on the other BSDs, But with FreeBSD it is not part of the distribution. Similar to how Debian and Ubuntu have non-free repositories. It's easy to install, but not installed by default.
Don't use the words "actually"
I got in an interesting flame war on what was native vs available to a Distribution, and that was on a meta Distibution where *nothing* is the default install. I'm not having another one to with what constitutes a port vs default install, because the bottom line is I don't care. I personally am more interested in the component parts of what makes up my own mythical meta-distribution, and selecting the parts that fit my needs. If you want to run without a full desktop GPL solution of either KDE Gnome or Xfce.
If you want to play some elitist Distro rubbish with me you have picked the wrong person. Go away.







Member since:
2006-03-12
No thank you. You misread me if you *re-read the quote* you will see that it says "BSD kernel distributions" which all contain GCC and Gnome and ... well you get my point, and all are *compiled* with GCC.
I make the point with no smack down. I use a kernel that Thom regularly advertised as *using* code from the BSD kernels, Every Linux based Distribution comes with X(ok not quite BSD).
Although I thank you again for *stressing* a different but supporting point as to why this should not be used in any smack down on different kernel licenses.
I personally think there is more to celebrate with successful open source applications that *compete* with proprietary ones like that of Firefox(under the Mozilla License) or when *binary proprietary blobs* are finally removed that damage all open platforms like that of Gnash by the FSF.
...Its not that I don't care about the license I think their are better points to be made about LLVM as being a replacement for GCC(it isn't check the slides) on BSD distributions. In fact if you click the link and look at the slides you will actually see quite a few *real* advantages to both clang and LLVM over their selected parts of GCC both technical *and* even some related to the license...and some disadvantages.
Edited 2007-09-30 02:45