Re: Linux and GCC

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Linux and GCC
Date	2017-04-17 17:46 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<od2nrp$r5d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <58ea3a03.3105375@news.xs4all.nl> <ocdh7l$6bt$1@dont-email.me> <ocdhhd$64o$2@dont-email.me> <58f0b188.6051750@news.xs4all.nl> <kfnr30r9879.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/04/17 02:41, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/04/17 16:45, Noob wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/2017 15:42, Richard Bos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is so widely supported that there are a range of compilers that
>>>>>> can be used to compile the Linux kernel.  Oh, wait, that's wrong - gcc
>>>>>> is the /only/ compiler that can be used for the kernel, because it is
>>>>>> the /only/ compiler to support this particular variant of C.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought Linux and gcc had nothing to do with one another?
>>>>> Make your mind up.
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear what your point is.
>>>
>>> His point is that he doesn't like gcc, Linux, or (I think) any sort of
>>> free or open source software.  So he likes to point out possible
>>> inconsistencies when people have said nice things about such software.
>>
>> Bullshit, and you know it.  I have made it quite clear quite often before
>> that what I dislike is not OSS itself but the hypocrisy of its adherents
>> and the lack of criticism it, and in particularly gcc, gets in this
>> newsgroup where commercialisms are roundly slated and even mocked for
>> similare, and often the very same, faults.
>>
>> If Microsoft makes its API easy to use for MSVC, and harder for gcc,
>> that's Microsoft's fault.  If Linux makes its API easy to use for gcc and
>> harder for other compilers, that's because it's the best design.  If M$
>> makes the compiler use the system DLLs, that's poor practice and
>> introduces dependencies.  If gcc separates the compiler and the library
>> and refuses to acknowledge that they are the two halves of one
>> implementation, that's just how it works.
>> I'm sorry that your ego is bruised by this, but that's _not_ how it
>> works.  You cannot praise Linux and the OSS milieu for the same things
>> you criticise M$, Apple and other vendors for.  That's nothing to do with
>> liking one or the other, that's plain hypocrisy.
>
> I sort of agree with you, but I think there's an important
> difference here that should be noted.  Microsoft go out of their
> way to introduce interdependencies that promote lock-in to their
> platforms, even when they know they are making choices that are
> technically flawed.  I see no indication that Linux developers or
> the GNU/FSF people do this.  Sometimes the GNU or Linux crowd
> make decisions that seem to me technically misguided (eg, info
> files in place of man pages), but AFAIK their intentions are
> sincere and not malicious.  The same cannot be said of Microsoft.
> (And I feel confident in saying that based on first-hand
> experience.)
>

"Dos ain't done 'til Lotus won't run"  :-)

To play the devil's advocate a little, and show that I am not /totally/ 
biased, I'd add a couple of points here.  One is that MS seems to be a 
lot better at playing with others now than it used to be - the days of 
secret Windows API's that are only available to the MS Office 
development team, and similar tactics, are mostly in the past.  The 
other is that the FSF do try to introduce dependencies on the GPL that 
are not technically justified, such as by encouraging libraries to use 
the GPL license rather than the LGPL.  Their motivations are not 
malicious - they sincerely believe that the license is better for end 
users, and therefore a good thing even for such libraries - but it is 
certainly not a technical motivation.

Thread

Reliable C tutorial for beginners MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:08 +0430
  Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-04 14:10 +0100
    Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 09:12 -0700
    Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:49 +0430
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:41 +0300
  Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-05 11:10 +0000
    Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-04-05 05:55 -0700
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:01 -0700
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 09:45 -0700
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-05 20:04 +0200
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-05 20:36 +0200
          Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 14:26 -0700
            Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 09:41 +0200
              Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 07:53 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 15:12 +0000
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 09:12 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 16:20 +0000
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 09:26 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 11:53 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2017-04-06 12:26 -0400
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 17:09 +0000
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 10:37 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 18:50 +0000
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 21:46 +0200
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 14:51 -0700
                Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-09 13:42 +0000
                Re: Linux and GCC Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-09 16:45 +0200
                Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:50 +0200
                Re: Linux and GCC Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-09 17:06 +0200
                Re: Linux and GCC raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:39 +0000
                Re: Linux and GCC Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 17:41 -0700
                Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-17 17:46 +0200
                Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-17 17:37 +0200
                Re: Linux and GCC supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 09:19 -0700
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-05 13:50 -0700
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 14:47 -0700
          Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 09:45 +0200
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-04-06 01:57 -0700
  Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-04-05 15:16 -0500
    Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 11:56 +0200
  Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 14:14 +0000
    Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners "C-bot" <cbot@example.com> - 2017-04-08 01:18 +0000
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 14:54 +0000
      Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-08 19:01 +0100
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-09 00:04 +0100
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 +0200
          Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:02 -0600
            Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-04-09 14:13 -0700
            Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-04-09 17:30 -0400
        Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-10 18:35 +0100

csiph-web