[e12e]

This explains the failure of gcc, glibc and gnu utils/userland to completely fail to gain traction too! /sarcasm

(Although the egcc split was painful, and at long last there are some viable alternatives - it took decades for them to rise up. So it's a little odd that the FSF/RMS would never have successfully been able to develop a project? Obviously the need for a (new) GPL licensed [kernel] is less when there exists a decent GPL licensed kernel (Linux)).

[pjmlp]

gcc was largely ignored until UNIX vendors started to sell the development tools instead of bundling them with the OS.

The majority of FOSS users are actually people that don't want to pay for software and never give anything back to the community.

[jgillich]

I don't think the issue is that they don't want to pay, but that they don't realize they can. Often, when a open source solution lacks some required feature, a proprietary one is chosen. Paying the developer to implement that feature is just not something that comes to mind.

[e12e]

> The majority of FOSS users are actually people that don't want to pay for software and never give anything back to the community.

That's two pretty bold (perhaps even inflammatory) statements.

[Perhaps contigent on a) the number of users of commmercial software that either do not pay, or do pay, but do not want to pay - and b) the definition of "giving back to the community" (Is paying for a Windows license "giving back to the community"?) and to wich extent most users of (any-license) software ever give anything back to the community.]

[pjmlp]

It is based on my experience on how most companies I ever had any sort of contact, work with FOSS.

Also how the majority of everyone that I know, that isn't a technical user, deals with FOSS. They don't care if it is pirated or FOSS, just that they didn't pay for it.

Why do you think there is hardly any money to be done for desktop FOSS software, which usually isn't subjected to trainings or consulting fees?

[chris_wot]

gcc is already beginning to lose traction to llvm.

[e12e]

My point was that "already", means "it took a long time". See also: embedded development.

[FullyFunctional]

I've heard this unsubstantiated claim for years now. It certainly depends on your metric. LLVM still lacks behind in generated code quality on most mainstream platforms [my own unpublished benchmarks]. LLVM appears to attract more mind-share from people leveraging the infrastructure, including writing new front- and back-ends; I'm guessing the code is easier to understand and better documented.

A few years ago I had expected LLVM to have caught up to GCC by now, but I hadn't anticipated the accelerated pace of GCC improvements. I don't know if the competition from LLVM had anything to do with this, but GCC is showing no signs of slowing down.

[wiz21c]

could you elaborate ?