|
|
|
|
|
by peoplefromibiza
1337 days ago
|
|
> The kernel community has never been particularly interested in the whole free vs open source software debate that's total BS are you telling me that Alan Cox had no involvement in the Free Software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox_(computer_programmer) > It’s just that Linux used GCC extensions and no one was interested in doing the work necessary to have it compile on a non-GCC compiler. the GCC extensions were essential to enforce the GCC supremacy because no other non-free compiler could implement them |
|
I don’t see how your statement contradicts or is even linked to mine.
The kernel community as a whole very much has little interest into the philosophical arguments surrounding open source. Apart from being convinced that sharing code is the best way to develop a kernel they have next to no active involvement in the whole charade.
See for exemple keeping GPL v2, not opposing TIVOisation, disapproving on technical merits but allowing proprietary drivers and binary blobs.
> the GCC extensions were essential to enforce the GCC supremacy because no other non-free compiler could implement them
Linux uses GCC extensions because they are handy and GCC was the compiler everyone used to compile C projects for a long time. It’s not intentionally done to promote GCC on ideological ground, something pretty much no one cares about in the kernel community.