Re: clang and FSF's strategy

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
>> testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc,
>> and how clang is fostering non-free software.
>
> What does it matter whether clang fosters non-free software if clang *also*
> fosters free software? Indeed, non-free software inspires a lot of free
> software, anyway.
>
> Apparently, gcc isn't fostering much of anything, except for a desire to
> replace it with llvm/clang.
>
> Where there is the least friction, there is the most freedom.

And you can save a lot of money on street construction if everybody just
drives off-road.  Simple solutions for the win.

The GNU project did not get where it is by accident.  If you take a look
at "prisoner's dilemma" tournaments, by far the most successful strategy
invariably is "tit for tat" and slight variations.  The unmodified
strategy will _never_ beat an opponent in any single battle, and it
still emerges as the winner in many tournaments.

At any rate, if you want to bash the strategies of the GNU project,
these lists are the wrong place to go.  Try doing it on the Clang list
though I am skeptical that they do not have better things to do as well.

-- 
David Kastrup