On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument
may have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD
itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and the money to pay for them comes from those
commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to
continue, it will not continue.
but why it isn't clearly stated:
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a
GPLv3 license. If there was a "shmoodlepoodle" compiler instead of
"clang" that met this requirement instead and was at least as performant
and stable, it would likely have been selected. If you don't like clang
as an option, go away and come back when you've built a better compiler
and offered it under an acceptable license.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
