[planede]

For something to be considered a feature, it has to be beneficial to someone. I'm not arguing that the benefit should manifest in convenience. Who benefits from the Linux kernel not being able to be compiled by a certain compiler, and how?

[peoplefromibiza]

> For something to be considered a feature, it has to be beneficial to someone

It was beneficial to Linux, the open source and free software, as in GPL licensed, kernel.

It was beneficial to its users.

It was beneficial to the free software movement.

It wasn't beneficial to corporations, probably.

Things in fact have changed when corporate sponsored interests raised around Linux as a money maker platform. And when Apple started its war against GPLv3 (suddenly GCC was not good anymore for them) .

> Who benefits from the Linux kernel not being able to be compiled by a certain compiler, and how?

Again: the fact that Linux was not being able to be compiled by a certain compiler doesn't seem to me it hindered its ability to become the most used platform in the server space (or one of the most used).

Any counter proof?

-----

As already stated: beneficial != convenient

Going to the doctor for regular checks is not convenient, but it's beneficial for your health.

[planede]

Linux remained GPL, compiled with clang or not. It didn't become possible to use Linux in a non-free way, did it?

[peoplefromibiza]

> Linux remained GPL

Apple started to use Clang because GPLv3 was stricter than GPLv2.

That's why you can compile Linux with Clang, because Apple did not want to use GCC anymore!

That was a feature back in the day.

It forced corporations to adapt to Linux, instead of the opposite.