Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

Boris Buegling wrote:

>Brett Glass sez:
>
>>If they'd cared, they would have started from scratch. GCC (especially
>>at that time and still today) was not a particularly good compiler.
>>
>You're right, GCC sucks, so does Linux. Hmmm, wait, why does anyone use it 
>then ? Ah, there's nothing else available ! Hmmm, wait, there is some compiler
>my Microsoft, which sucks and there's Borland C++, which also sucks. So, I guess
>GCC is not so bad in comparison to these famous commercial compilers.
>

I'm *not* coming to Brett's defense here, as his statements are not very 
intelligent (which is strange, because Brett isn't a stupid person, just 
obsessive).  However, Brett is correct in that GCC's code isn't as 
efficient as some compilers: for instance, Sun's compiler produces 
better SparcV9 code, and IBM's compiler produces better PowerPC code. 
 ("Better" here means more efficient, faster code.)  Even Intel's 
compiler produces better code than GCC.

All these compilers prove that GCC is *not* killing off other compilers. 
 Brett would be hard-pressed to come up with a *single* example of a 
compiler which GCC has killed.  In the PC world, Zortech was killed by 
MS and Borland; Borland is slowly being displaced by an inferior 
*commercial* product (MS Visual C/C++/etc).  In fact, every single 
argument Brett has put forth is unsupported by the evidence.

His statement that GCC is "inferior" is also debatable.  GCC is designed 
primarily to be portable, and efficiency is a secondary consideration. 
 GCC has better standards compliance for C; it's C++ support is lags a 
little bit, but is quickly catching up, especially with regards to 
templates.  So, for the design goals of GCC, it is far beyond *any* 
other compiler.

In fact, I'd suggest that GCC even *created* some compiler markets.  For 
instance, several years ago, every Unix came with a compiler.  Now, 
hardly any commercial Unix comes with a compiler; it has been unbundled, 
and is sold separately.  Sun now makes money off its compiler, when 
before it was bundled with the OS.  Ask Sun why, and they will say, "Use 
GCC if you need a free compiler.  Buy ours if you need speed and 
efficiency."  At least, that was the gist of it when I talked to a Sun 
engineer.

As far as Linux sucking: it does, in some ways.  The BSD variants are 
coded better, or at least more consistently.  (There's some really ugly 
code in the Linux kernel, sitting right along side some beautiful code. 
 Some of the ugly code was taken from BSD projects, though, so I can't 
blame it on the GPL.)  There are two things that attract coders to 
Linux: the idea that Red Hat can't use their code in a proprietary 
product, and Linus himself.  He is quite charismatic.  (Brett, you might 
call Linux a "cult of personality" now!  Or have you already?)

Some people really like the chaos around the Linux kernel development. 
 I know I prefer the unfettered nature.  And if I wanted a 
technically-superior kernel, I'd switch to the Hurd, which is a better 
designed kernel than Linux or any of the BSDs.  And it came right from 
the bossom of Stallman himself, so it'd piss Brett off even more.

Anyway, beware of both extremes.  Mostly though, code and have fun.

                        - Tony