GNU plus Linux?

DISCUSS

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/ramosian-glider/clang-kernel-build
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This picture is retarded and you obviously have no idea what GNU is.
You can't use any modern linux based operating system without GNU code.
Saged.

Only because there's not alternative to GNU. Of course you can't use a Linux Kernel on its own.
But GNU is basically stopping Linux from living up to its full potential.

>You can't use any modern linux based operating system without GNU code.
That's the whole point/joke of the second half of the picture, dumb GNUmale.


>Saged.
Sage hasn't worked on Sup Forums for years, go beck to le reddit newfag.

Does android use GNU code?

There's nothing wrong with GNU

Accurate. There isn't much to discuss.

>You can't use any modern linux based operating system without GNU code.
You can, though.

>You can't use any modern linux based operating system without GNU code.
I don't think that's OP's point. It's more about GNU being the worst part about the OS so it has to be cut off and replaced with something new.

You literally can, the only gnu required is GCC but that's quickly becoming not so

I'D LIKE TO JUST INTERJECT FOR A MOMENT...

these dubs don't lie
You're right, OP. However the worst is the software provided by bistro grill masters.

GNU is shit.
Their philosophy is retarded.
Their programs are slow and bloated.
Their license isnt really free.
alpine, sta.li just to name a few

There will always be people that either hate something, or like something. At least in the linux community, you get to develop something new if the old isn't working for you. So where is your home-made alternative for GNU? I wanna see what the complainers can make.

It's GNU+Linux

I know. That's the problem.

clang can replace gcc right now.

sta.li for example uses musl instead of glibc, sbase and ubase instead of coreutils, mksh for bash, etc

Linux code partially depends on GCCs non-standard behavior, so no, Clang can't replace GCC.

Time to change that

If you have nothing better to do with your time, feel free to do so.

>still using Linux instead of the modern Redox OS

HURD will never be a thing

Yes

Brainlet here, can someone tell me why gnu and the gcc is bad?

Proprietary is the only way to go.

Because GPL limits your liberty.

LLVM is far superior.

People have compiled the kernel with clang iirc

It doesn't as google is a gpl hater.

Do you mean the ability to sell your code?

Actually it does, retard

>62218478
>there is no (You) for retards

>no argument
>i know i'll act like a 12 year old shithead that'll show him! praise KEK!!

;-;

Da

>You can't use any modern linux based operating system without GNU code.
I do.

You can sell GPLed software

The GPL license isn't free enough because requires you to use the GPL license on any forks of GPL software. While this restriction supports the free software movement, it is an inconvenience to people who want to use the source code to make software that is more proprietary or software that is more free.

The original BSD license and its variants just require attribution to the developer and that's it. No restriction on licensing. It's more free than the GPL.

>Their programs are slow and bloated.
gnu yes is faster than your cuckware yes.

Debian based but you can subsitute for your own package manager building environment. Kernel 4.12

github.com/ramosian-glider/clang-kernel-build

Only if you give them the source code

and that's wrong how?

if you don't like it. pay for a license that agrees with your usage and distribution faggot.

Why would they buy it when they can get it for free?

GPL is a USERS license it does not take any interest in the developer. Its a cuck communist license

what is busybox, what is llvm ? The fact that they are always shipped together is a testament of how well they fit

because most GPL'd software offers commercial licenses that can be tailored for your usage.

this is important because then freeloading nigger companies can't abuse the spirit of the free licenses to unjustly profiteer.

for instance at my job they had to GPL a part of the system because of a IPC mechanism they were using was dependent on source code that was relicensed GPLv2 and they couldn't afford the commercial license terms.

thus everyone won.

>they had to GPL
Forcing a developer to give up his code in able to be part of the "hip gpl system"?
That sounds like communism to me

lmao?
it's communist because some cheap medium cap business couldn't afford to use software that was written in the public interest in a way that denies their customer's freedoms to study and analyze the code running on some ARM based controller?

I don't think you know what "communism" or "force" even means.

mediocre tools that lack feature parity with GNU equivalents for no obvious benefit other than being anti gnu?

also busybox is trash. just shipping dynamically linked binaries is easier than setting up a toolchain just to build some binary that will likely get you sued for anyhow.