Conversation

Replying to

The people actually making the GNU stuff aren't happy with RMS either. We need to extricate it from the FSF & RMS, not embrace a takeover by Google.

Quote Tweet

e. hashman

@ehashdn

Mar 22, 2021

GNU projects and the free software movement are *far* bigger than one individual. Demanding people stop using GNU software due to association is just the mirror take of those claiming the FSF can't survive without him. He is not that important. Hold him accountable.

Show this thread

Replying to

and

And I'm not exaggerating here - many of the big alternatives are essentially controlled by Google, and Google pays folks who RT harassment of trans children to work on it.

Replying to

what of the less obvious things don't have direct alternatives? autotools is a good example I think. and I guess gdb.

Replying to

LLVM has a debugger, but see my above remarks. Autotools lacks a direct alternative because most of what it does is just wrong and doesn't need to be done at all.

Replying to

and

Google is far from controlling LLVM. They were contributing a comparable amount to GCC, binutils, etc. back when they still used it and before they'd decided to migrate to LLVM. The binutils replacements were a lot more focused on macOS and Windows before caring about Linux too.

Replying to

and

LLVM donated their branding to a stupid toy project of Google's just because Google wanted them to. They are controlled by Google.

Replying to

and

The libc project fits into the overall ambitions of LLVM beyond Google. They're very open to incubating those projects and accepting substantial code drops from big companies. LLD and LLDB are pretty good examples. Originally, it wasn't clear LLD would do serious Linux support.

Replying to

and

I don't think it actually does, but even if it did, the proposal to do it did not fit with LLVM project at all and was purely something of Google's imagination.

Replying to

and

libcxx.llvm.org, libcxxabi.llvm.org and compiler-rt.llvm.org have been part of LLVM for a long time. It makes sense to me that they'd want a libc implementation when they have a C++ standard library, C++ runtime and low-level runtime. I think it fits into it.

Replying to

and

Then would they want a kernel too?

Replying to

and

No, but as another example I could easily see them making a Java AOT / JIT compiler, Java standard library implementation, debugger, etc. I could see Google being the main sponsors of that work too. I could also see them maintaining the userspace portion of GPU drivers.

6:55 PM · Mar 24, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Or, as another example, I could see LLVM having a permissive licensed alternative to QEMU. A lot of the infrastructure for software emulation of architectures with hardware acceleration is already present. It's a much broader project than a compiler. It always was to some extent.

Replying to

and

Part of what that would mean is having it available as a library, not simply a tool. That's part of what you get from Clang, LLD, LLDB, etc. They're permissively licensed libraries not simply tools. LLVM is in the situation WebKit would be if Apple & Google had worked together.

Show replies