Fuck off BSD shills. You been making your ongoing guerrilla marketing since GCC changed to GPL3 and FreeBSD directive board, all hired by CISCO, decided to go in a war with propaganda against everything GPL. Shilling shitty compilers and shitty products with BSD license and brainwashing your own forums to post this war everywhere else, you niggers won't stop just like Microsoft was when the Halloween documents appeared.
Leave.
Other urls found in this thread:
harmful.cat-v.org
gnu.org
stallman.org
interviews.slashdot.org
fsf.org
i.ytimg.com
twitter.com
cisco is love
cisco is life
...
this
GPL3 is the herpes of software licenses, only niggers proudly say they have it.
Take a knee and bin the GPL3
FUCK OFF BSD SHILL
no u
GPL2 is good for you :>
Why is CISCO not putting more money into FreeBSD instead of hiring PAID SHILLS?
>shitty compilers
what exactly do you have against LLVM? I mean, I haven't seen anyone rush to integrate GNU cc's backend into other projects, if such a thing is even possible
>LLVM
Not optimized.
not addressing what you said directly because i actually like llvm and the bsds, but the reason why is because nobody understands gcc unless they've spent 10 years working with it because it was written in a fasion purposefully designed to be obfuscated and hard to modify
>GNU
>literally making shitty bloat with cryptic code to demotivate anyone to build around their software thus avoiding GPL violations
>le code is bloat because of its license meme
kys BSD cucks
No. If GNU cc wasn't the massive beast that it is, perhaps LLVM wouldn't have existed in the first place.
It exists precisely because it fills a need that the existing software does not, aside from the licencing differences. Let me know when Mesa3D starts using the GCC backend for optimised software rendering...
I fell for the bsd meme.
It's fucking garbage.
Are complaining a compiler has too many features and at the same time bluffing another has one more?
GCC sucks
harmful.cat-v.org
Why? Hating on something you don't even know is stupid.
just use plan 9's *c/*l
or tcc
also gpl's whole concept is trash
it's slow trash that mangles language standards and encourages people to write shit non-portable code
>implying
I wonder what shit you are running, probably as shit as
lol did the gcc to clang switch on openbsd make you butthurt
>BUT WHY
>tell you why
>HURR IMPLYING
what a pathetic non-argument
>Citing a retarded website that is notorious of saying nothing of value.
*Slow clapping*
I have seen GCC, I'm an embedded ARM developer
It generates weird code
It has shitty output compared to clang
Oh, and fuck the libgcc dependency
Not an argument.
>It generates weird code
Not an argument, but I do see the output as an argument.
...
>replies to not an argument with not an argument
are you even literate?
fuck off loonix shill. that faggot linus is loaded from doing all those sponsored tech reviews to pay you to shitpost all day.
>mistaking Linus the youtuber with the kernel developer
These BSD cucks sure are stupid as hell.
>what is proto irony
>free as in freedom software
>no freedom to not share your source
no thanks
Apache, BSD, MIT, and ISC are some of the only real free as in freedom licenses
Ya'll niggas need to read this gnu.org
>I'm not truly free because I'm not allowed to rape small children.
Is what you just said.
someone took mommy's words about sharing is caring a little too far
you're not the devil for not wanting your life to be full of open sores
>open sores
So you are not really promoting Apache, or BSD, or MIT, or whatever, because you are a developer. Is because you want OTHER DEVELOPERS fall in the trap.
Fuck off CISCO shill.
No, all memes aside, obviously I prefer open source to closed source. I contribute to a few different projects regularly - code, management, and money. Additionally, I don't mind tossing money at issues through stuff like bountysource.
I think that open source is by far the best way to develop and the best way to live.
But, by the same token, I think people should have the right to live like shitty people if they want to.
GPL is a digital STD by a mildly pedophilic fatman with an ego. I don't need any of that in my life. Apache 2.0 or bust
Redpill me, is it bad to work for Cisco and why?
>No
So you are not shilling those shitty licenses because you are a developer, but because you want others fall in the trap.
And all those personal feelings represent the gross of the toxic BSD community. You are truly cancer.
>become a FreeBSD developer
>work free for CISCO
You tell me.
poor slashdot troll :-(
you got btfo so bad you landed 18 years in the future.
Yes. Working for a for-profit corporation is always bad.
openbsd is comfy and just works without any maintenance because they write good code.
>comfyfag
Yeah, but like, why?
Or work for Cisco for money
GNU/Freedom >>>> freebsd tb.h
Have you tried LibertyBSD? Is essentially OpenBSD without binary blobs.
Point is, working for FreeBSD is working for free for CISCO without having anything get back a the community. Instead of paying shills on the internet they should put more money for the community.
Because capitalism is wrong. Capitalism and open-source software are incompatible on a fundamental level, and it is surprising open-source software hasn't been killed off yet.
Sadly, many problems seen as technological are actually societal problems, and could be solved there instead.
these kinds of infantile arguments are why GPLtards are cancerous
with no better arguments against it they start crying and wailing about how not doing what they want is LITERALLY rape and then are surprised when people laugh at them and treat them like the children they are
>infantile arguments
You are a potential homicide, an obvious sociopath, and a dangerous person. Also, your reuse of arguments from other people makes is obvious.
fuck off riley
>implying gcc did not conform to llvm when they started using ssa
LibertyBSD doesn't harm any of the other BSDs by existing.
well you're trying to harm openbsd by implying it forces you to use proprietary software
I don't care whether blobs exist, since I know I use closed-source hardware. Software is only as free as the hardware it runs on.
When I have 100% open-source hardware, from the atomic level, I'll begin caring. Until then, I just have to assume I do have hardware trojans in my hardware. So any software trojans in a BSD are just additional on top what I already have.
gNewSense, LibertyBSD, and Trisquel cannot stop hardware trojans. So until I have free hardware, there is no purpose in using these OSes. But they harm no-one, and maybe, in the far future, they will be useful.
What is your opinion on Libreboot?
I use software regardless of the license but for software that I code myself I'd like to have it be open source but not let some fucker run off with it without paying me or giving me credit. Its hard enough to get a coding job now I have to work for free? Fuck that. I want to allow my code to be freely used for academic and personal reasons but not for some jackoff that didn't contribute to sell. At the very least I'd want the opportunity to negotiate with businesses about a price on giving them full rights to a certain version.
GPLfags you aren't off the hook either. Many enterprises don't want to touch anything GPL because the license is vaguely defined and viral. And even if I write a mountain of beautiful code through blood, sweat, and tears some asshole can fork it and make minor changes without me ever seeing a dime.
maybe you guys worth for free but I don't. life costs money.
>capitalism is wrong
Don't you have a gender studies class to get to?
Paid shill theory explains a lot, because absolutely nobody who's actually attempted using BSD as their primary desktop OS would recommend it to others.
It is absolute shit.
It harms no-one, but the fact remains that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link: if you have proprietary hardware, you cannot assume you're free of privacy invasions.
Stallman is a hypocrite: until very recently, he entirely dismissed open-source hardware, and now he only pretends to approve of it to save face.
Nice reddit spacing.
Why are you calling him an hypocrite if he used X60 and endorsed libreboot since it was available? Don't hold a grudge.
>BSD
>Chad License
>F r e e M a r k e t
>Get paid $$$$ Cisco bucks and have /comfy/ employment
>GPL
>Virgin License
>Commie breadlines
>Get paid $0 because no one wants to use software with a meme license
>>Get paid $$$$ Cisco bucks and have /comfy/ employment
>"get paid"
He has never endorsed open-source hardware. He also cherrypicks which hardware he cares about.
stallman.org
>As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.
interviews.slashdot.org
>RMS: The case of the toaster is very clear: we can't tell, except by taking it apart, whether it has a processor and software or a special-purpose chip. Since that we can't tell the difference, it makes no difference: therefore, a program that will never be changed is equivalent to a circuit. I don't care whether a toaster or microwave oven contains software.
Google any combination of "Stallman" and "microwave" or "toaster" and you'll see that Stallman genuinely only cares about getting gratis software for laptops and desktops: he does not care about freedom.
I hope Stallman's microwave records his voice and sends it to the NSA.
I wonder if he changed his mind now that even toasters have microchips too. And I am not sure he knew we would have such a totatilarian intrusion on the firmware level.
He now acknowledges free hardware exists, like the development of RISC-V, but he claims it isn't important. His excuse was that users wouldn't be able to manufacture it, the equivalent of compiling it, at home, so it doesn't matter.
But in reality, if enough independent groups could audit what a factory manufactures, it'd be better than our situation today.
>if enough independent groups could audit what a factory manufactures, it'd be better than our situation today
I agree 100%, hopefully we can see this happening on this decade.
>Stallman is a hypocrite: until very recently, he entirely dismissed open-source hardware
Stallman used to use a Lemote Yeeloong specifically because of the open source hardware.
does trannyboot support bsds?
I don't think hardware being open-source matters much for widely used appliances.
Even if a shady piece of hardware/software were to be found, there would already be hordes of shills/tards/sliders/etc. who would bury the issue behind tons of fluff. This has been happening for a while in environments where information is complete, such as legislation, so why would it not happen here?
Obviously in markets where buyers are well aware of such issues this would not fly, but we're talking common household embedded applications and servers/laptops/what-have-yous here.
I guess the gist of it is: if customers do not have the level of knowledge required to care about what they buy at more than a superficial level, how does this matter? What can be done in order to change this state of affairs?
MPL2.0 is probably the best license
What if you want C++?
>the copyright on my code can't be infringed if I let people do anything they want with it
"open source" logic. do you leave your front door open too so that nobody will pick the lock?
>The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.
Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite. Today the BIOS sits square on the edge of the line. It comes prewritten in our computers, and normally we never install another. So far, that is just barely enough to excuse treating it as hardware. But once in a while the manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is available only as an executable.
fsf.org
I honestly think it's a compromised because of the prevalence of mcus. You wouldn't be able to use any appliance after the 1970s and there are more important pieces of software the fsf is trying to replace.
bretty cool
i.ytimg.com
>do you leave your front door open too so that nobody will pick the lock?
Dumb argument. I don't lose anything by letting others use my code.
>le "UNIX philosophy" maymay
>"don't use Firefox, use Dillo instead!"
>le "everything GNU is bad because coreutils is 38 KB more than their Unix counterparts and those 38 KB are made of BLOAT" maymay
>"bloat ate my kids :((("
Holy shit, that website is rubbish. Haven't seen such an autistic guy since Suckless.it
>Haven't seen such an autistic guy since Suckless.it
I think that the Suckless guy either runs cat-v or contributes to it.
>people unironically use non-gnu userland
how, and why?
Yeah I mean i absolutely hate bloat, but even I think those guys take it way too far.
Based theo
>how
By using a non-GNU userland, sounds pretty self-explanatory.
>why?
They prefer it.
>preferring slow featureless garbage
wtf
Prove it's slow and featureless.
GPL3 was a mistake
>BSD thread is made
>immediately 100's of linux fags rush in waving legal documents and screaming something about cheating wives
>thread drowns in a heap of shit or they get bored, move on and the thread becomes a comfortable 3 post p/hour discussion about various BSD things
You fuckers are like zombies.