|
|
|
|
|
|
by WastingMyTime89
1335 days ago
|
|
|
> are you telling me that Alan Cox had no involvement in the Free Software? 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. |
|
|
because they didn't have to.
someone already established that it was the foundation, people like Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Maddog Hall and many (not too many, actually) others.
The "community" for the longest time has been a bunch of people
"is a small and well-defined group: Linus, Maddog Hall, Alan Cox, and somewhere between 6 and 12 others (varying at times)." (Steven Suson, 1999)
"Watch the linux-kernel mailing list. The "Inner Circle" becomes very obvious. People go in and out of the Circle, so a list probably isn't possible [...] I would say it includes may be 2 dozen people." (Eric Princen, 1999)
> It’s not intentionally done to promote GCC on ideological ground, something pretty much no one cares about in the kernel community.
again: you're talking at the present, I am talking about the first two decades
you may have forgotten about it, I did not.