[chandlerc1024]

Just so we're completely clear, Google has been an incredibly long-term contributor to basically all parts of LLVM. So have sooooo many other companies. This is a really cool project IMO, but it doesn't represent a significant change in who or how much anyone is contributing to LLVM... It's a drop in the bucket.

And for the record, LLVM is doing fine with all these corporate contributors.

I'm not trying to say that this can't be a concern for OSS communities and projects, but LLVM seems to have a quite successful and sustainable model here.

[microtonal]

The problem is that neither the original thread, nor the threads here (which seem to be quite heavy on Google commenters) answers the question 'why?'.

I think this wouldn't have caused nearly as much commotion as it does now, if the original post explained the technical reasons for starting a new libc. What problems do existing implementations have? How could a new libc address these issues?

Instead, this has an air of (regardless whether this is true): we are going to write a new libc for completely opaque company-driven reasons, and either you accept it or you we will make it happen anyway.