edelsohn's comments

Regulatory capture. The impact on small providers was intended.

The AI Alliance AI Accelerator Software Ecosystem Guide provides a comprehensive and insightful overview of the complicated landscape.

Good start a description of IBM i. The article should explain more about capability based systems for it to make more sense.

The ABI described is the same as the AIX ABI. R1 is the stack pointer and R31 is the frame pointer, when needed.

__builtin_constant_p(vec) is not inquiring if the contents of vec is constant. The compilers are not being fickle. The statement is not performing the question that the developer intended.

When it becomes beneficial to game a system (fame, power, money), people will learn to game the system. "Weird Nerds" weren't drawn to their interests with the intent to game the system. Sometimes "weird nerds" can achieve more success if they find a political animal who recognizes the benefit of teaming with them.

The article implies that he was drunk, but every eyewitness refers to sleeping pills. It seems that the alcohol claim is solely from his demeaner in the infamous outtakes without knowing the cause of the slurred speech. People assume that he was drunk, so the few articles written about this event duly report that he was drunk.

I'm surprised that he didn't mention Nebulet microkernel running WASM.

It's not about purity, it's about options. The ClangBuiltLinux community advocated that Linux should not be dependent upon a single compiler. But when Rust came along, suddenly many of the same people suddently decided that a single compiler was okay.

The Rust community is not perfect. Neither is the LLVM community nor the GCC community, not any Open Source community. Consider the recent drama / growing pains that has occurred within the Rust community. Everyone has biases and conflicts of interest. Anyone who doesn't recognize the benefit of alternatives will learn the hard way.

The Rust community rationalization that they don't need / want alternatives for "reason" is self-serving and all about control. I don't care if someone is the BDFL, they aren't right 100% of the time and not always doing things for altruistic reasons. The Rust community has imbued the leadership with some godlike omniscience and altruism because it makes them feel good, not because it's sound policy.

Based on that logic, why did the LLVM community develop Clang, Clang++, libc++, etc. instead of continuing with DragonEgg? There already were GCC, G++, libstdc++ , as well as EDG C++ front-end.

GCC, Clang, MSVC, and other compilers complement each other, serve different purposes, and serve different markets. They also ensure that the language is robust and conforms to a specification, not whatever quirks a single implementation happens to provide. And multiple implementations avoids the dangers of relying on a single implementation, which could have future problems with security, governance, etc.

The GNU Toolchain Project, the LLVM Project, the Rust project all have experienced issues and it's good to not rely on a single point of failure. Redundancy and anti-fragility is your friend.

The original vector facility is gone, but the Z Vector Extension (VX) is utilized by AI/ML software, such as NumPy, OpenBLAS, etc.

Stallman and the FSF are solely focused on the ideology and not on how to create a practical economy based on the ideology. RMS has not advocated and materially supported software, such as GCC, that implements Free Software principles while he is eager to take credit for and fundraise on the success of those communities.

RMS specifically has prevented GCC from being innovative in ways that would complicate the enforcement of the GPL until the new feature is required to be competitive. First, that is not freedom. Second, that policy may have been viable when GCC was the only viable challenger to proprietary compilers, but not when Open Source compilers with more commercially friendly licenses exist.

The FSF is fighting the last war and believes that corporations are trying to tear down the FSF and the GNU Project software. It's a fantasy to convince themselves that they are relevant.

Richard was a great visionary and is useful to expand the Overton window, but the FSF has not evolved to advocate for a pragmatic approach. If RMS and the FSF wishes to advocate for a purist ideology, that's fine, but they need to accept that it severely limits their appeal and ability to shape policy, even if they are "right".

The FSF and the RMS fanbase advocate for a philosophy without a viable business model or skin in the game.

The FSF can stand on principle, but most of the developers who are employed to work on Free Software don't wish to follow it into irrelevance and oblivion. The FSF can advocate for its principles and philosophy, but ultimately it has painted itself into a corner where it has no skin in the game for the impact of the strident interpretation of those principles and philosophies on the developers whose jobs depend on Free Software projects.

The FSF is happy to take credit for the impact and benefit of the GNU Project software packages. And happy to raise money for its efforts based on the impact of the software, although the efforts primarily are advocacy for and enforcement of the licenses, not support for the success of the software projects. The FSF and its advocates mostly are concerned about the purity of the ideology. Anyone or any project that deviates is an apostate.

The FSF and its leadership explicitly have stated that they have inhibited innovation in deference to the ideology. When Free Software was the only option to counter proprietary software, maybe that made sense. With a plethora of Open Source licenses and an explosion of Open Source projects, a reactive approach of waiting until the FSF is forced to allow a technically competitive feature is a losing strategy.

How does Codon leverage the lessons learned from Unladen Swallow?

As policies for academics to own intellectual property and form companies, the license also has come into play. The license also has influenced corporate choices and advocacy for toolchain projects. Documentation and actively encouraging new developers is important, but not the only impact on the project.

Will San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin support this shift in approach?

Chris sent a message to RMS and RMS dropped the ball. There were other conversations with Chris and Chris dropped the ball as well.

The most current version of the GPL is GPL v3.0. GCC specifically and somewhat controversially updated to GPLv3 when it was released. The version of the license that applies to GCC is GPL v3.0. There is no mythical GPL v3.1 or GPL v4.0.

The announcement specifically stated that GCC "will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU General Public License v3.0." Until there is a revised license the "or later" is moot. One does not "continue" a policy that is a change in policy.

If this is the biggest complaint about the announcement, I think that the GCC SC did an excellent job.

Apple and the LLVM developers were contributing to GCC, interacting with the GCC Community and in contact with the GCC Steering Committee. They knew that GCC was lead by the GCC Steering Committee, not RMS. The fact that they supposedly sent one email to RMS, did not follow up with RMS, and did not try to contact any other leadership in the GCC Project is convenient.

Dell XPS are beautiful, but not robust. Many battery problems that Dell refuses to fix.

A battery should not bloat and warp the entire device immediately after the warranty expires.