Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:26 UTC, submitted by Chris Lattner
General Development The LLVM Project recently released a new version of their compiler, optimizer and code generators. LLVM includes a drop-in GCC-compatible C/C++ and ObjC compiler, mature optimization technology (including cross file/whole program optimization), and a highly optimizing code generator. For people who enjoy hacking on compilers and runtimes, LLVM provides libraries for implementing custom optimizers and code generators including JIT compiler support. This release is the first to provide beta GCC 4.2 compatibility as well as the new "clang" C/ObjC front-end, which provides capabilities to build source-to-source translators and many other tools.
Thread beginning with comment 275742
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Actually I wrote "I don't care" because I don't.

I wrote "go away" because I didn't think is was either a good or strong point, and I didn't want to get into a flame war about something I consider trivial....or even relevant to the point my original comment made.

If you have a point its that BSD does not have a "fully functional BSD only Desktop environment" or "BSD is not ready for the Desktop" you have made it. If your are trying to differentiate between a port...and a native application. Its lost on me, all I see is "work has been done so it works on that platform"...but after that I don't care. This is "open-source" whether its BSD or GPL. Doom runs on every platform under the Sun, it has been "ported to those platforms"...lovely. Isn't open-source great. I would say that doom runs "natively" on these platforms *once* it has been ported. I would even say that Doom is *cross-platform*. I would never say that Doom is a "port" unless I was trying to make a *point*.

So lets get back to your point, what is is it!? Its not just you trying to make a point. I think BSD Distributions are. I know its a port(sic) because I explain my mythical-meta-distribution and use the BSD+X+XFCE+Firefox+OpenOffice as an example and looked up the software that runs native on these platforms and gnome has a massive section on the freeBSD site. I think the mentality of "this is my stuff and this is your stuff...but to function we need some of your stuff we will call that stuff a port, and just have a minimal install we can label an OS" is just a desperate. I personally think its backward thinking. I think the goal should be the 95% market share occupied by Microsoft rather than argue about the 0.1 0.01 occupied by GNU/Linux;BSD;Solaris based distributions. Think about my comment on "elitest games"

If you have a truth(sic) its not *MY* truth. If you think *that* your truth is worth your internet account...or even switching on your computer more power to you, but as I said *I Don't Care* have your kernel+CLI tools elitest pissing contest away from me. I'll just continue using my end-to-end fully functioning Desktop solution that comes under at at least 50 different licenses.

Now you don't have to "Go away" because I am. I don't care for this pettiness.

Edited 2007-10-02 18:47

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:


So lets get back to your point, what is is it!?


If you'll recall, he was not pushing an agenda, but pointing out a significant and verifiable factual error you had made while pushing yours.

His advice about dealing well with being corrected and disagreed with is on the mark, and we could all benefit from it at times.

Edited 2007-10-02 19:02

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:

"If you have a point its that BSD does not have a "fully functional BSD only Desktop environment" or "BSD is not ready for the Desktop" you have made it. If your are trying to differentiate between a port...and a native application."

Uh, anything in the ports system a native application, or one that runs under linux compatibility, but the difference is that does not maintain it, just like MS does not maintain Firefox, and makes no warranty or support offers for it. It's maintained BY OTHER PEOPLE.

That's the difference, just like GCC is maintained by other people. That doesn't make it not native, it makes it somebody else's responsibility.

I think the division between FreeBSD and Ports make sense. It allows them to work on what makes FreeBSD great, the kernel and the userland utilities. Let other people supply the apps. That's the way it works on other OS's

"Now you don't have to "Go away" because I am. I don't care for this pettiness. "

I'm not sure why I am being petty, I think I am being reasonable. I think you better read back through this discussion and see who has been acting petty.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:

lol. I take it all back. I thought I was in a flame war, but you can officially say that I have learned something. I did like this post. I don't think it distracts from anything I've posted. I actually like my last comment a lot apart from a random "a".

"FreeBSD and Ports make sense", the way you describe it, it *does* make sense to separate those two, and I understand your second comment. The word "Ports" doesn't "Unmaintained" "Unsupported" "Not invented here" does. For your argument to work *every single piece of software at* is a port to the windows platform in fact *anything* not on the Recovery(sic) Disk is a port. In fact it so doesn't fit in todays open-source world.

Your right it is *me* not you because I think *differently*, your post has actually raised two points with me, and one for you.

1) I use the word GNU which is *contentious*, I actually use it for the *freedom*(I really hate that word sometimes) that I'm given, although I should say control. It made me think how sad todays Linux based distributions would be if Hurd would have succeeded. The FSF having total control of *everything* is a bad idea. The fact that companies; organizations; individuals with different viewpoints enrich *my* computing experience is wonderful. A situation like that of BSD that you describe would be unbearable.

2) My other point is *you* are the norm. I am not. I don't know if its because my first experiences of GNU was slackware, with that awful overwhelmingly installation where I had to *choose* what I wanted to install...when I recognized nothing. I do not differentiate between Distributions, because the individual packages that make up the Distribution are greater than the Distribution as a whole and the time creating and effort put into creating a distribution is trivial compared to that of the software it containes. The reason I was curt with you apart from the word "Actually" and I think its a nonsense, is the fact that I ended up in a similar flamewar that Mirrors this one, where an individual tried to convince me that doing an "emerge package" is vastly different from "./configure; make; install" or adding an overlay and doing a "emerge package" on a *source based Distributions* is vastly different all going on while I have my usual stalkers with me. The difference between me and you is you have some *mythical* idea of ownership through maintenance, when the only thing resembling *ownership* is those individuals; organization; companies that have copyright even then on a very loose idea of copyright.

3) Look at Distrowatch the list packages that the CD's come with. There are specialist Distro's tailored to particular functionality; ideals, but the reality is the differences come from a mix of various packages, and I mean specifically Kernel+Cli; Desktop; Package Manager; Applications; Proprietary Garbage; Patches and Fixes to make it all work as a coherent whole. If you look down the list of packages you notice that they are *all* the same, one might have 7.2 instead of 7.1 of 1.0.22 instead of 1.0.23 or 2.6.22 instead of 2.6.21 and they all feel and look and work the fact the biggest difference is the Desktop...and I don't think its that big a deal. Glance around at the various screenshots of different wallpapers/icon sets running quake its kind of sad that look the same on every distributions web-site. I actually cringe when I see articles like the "Linux rough around the edges" because you see one individual trying 20 different distributions and having *exactly* the same problems with *all* of them. I'm actually at a loss when people attack other Distro's when in reality the difference is that that the Distribution they have chosen is probably suitable for them, everything else is defaults; wallpaper; and compatibility of software from various sources, although I suspect the reality is for a well *maintained* Distribution from a major player you are choosing between KDE and Gnome.

My final point, which is in direct contrast to what I was taught, and the definition in the handbook. The redefined guidelines by Microsoft continually expanding its Monopolist boundaries to extend beyond the Kernel+ CLI + Desktop + Media Center + Media Player + Virus Checker + Firewall + IM + Various API's ; Defacto Office + Look and Feel + Internet Defaults + Development Kit + Moving towards Internet Applications of what an OS is. The "stuff thats always in memory" as a definition has gone. You don't see Vista Users on here comparing kernels beyond statements that should start with IMO. They compare Vista Ultimate + Microsoft Office 2007 + Adobe Products + Other monopolistic product here + Worse than console Gaming a set-up costing thousands of pounds which people can only afford when *someone else is paying(sic)*. They compare a full Desktop experience at top dollar.

Now I spent a on time on that part of the post; which I now going to spell/grammar check; because some of it is long winded because I have stated how I *think*, and to get stuff(sic) organized in my own head. I am not advocating that you think my way because how I think on this one topic I am well aware I am the even clashes with this sites *name*. Its also long because you informed me; whether it was intentional or not, and these days that is rare, and replied to it how I hope how it was intended, and have intentionally ignored your emotive language.

The bottom line, the summery is there are *only* three OS's(sic) in my eyes although a better description would be "stuff installed on ones PC" Microsoft+Monopolistic Applications(90%+ Marketshare)+Short Shelf Life Applications+Free/Share/Adware; Apple(3%+ share)+Monopolistic Applications+Less Free/Share/Adware; Packaged together, loosely collected visible code; from a verity of sources(I call it GNU call it BSD if it makes you feel better, but I'm not explaining why here coming in at 0.8%-4% share)

I hope you appreciate this post.It should explain my posts, and why I post like I do, and why my truth(sic) is perhaps very different to yours. My truth is certainly flawed due to the portability of FOSS, and even more so with BSD licensed code. The only real truth the one I keep mentioning is the Divide is Microsoft vs the little people and if you have a market worth over 100 million expect them to spend billions to replace you.

Edited 2007-10-03 01:30

Reply Parent Score: 2