But that was around 2017. Perhaps people want to cut costs again - that's not a new thing. After all, they changed their mind in 2011 only because they got in excess of 5000 attacks that year. At any time in the past, I would have decided that science was good for the Sapiens. But now, with hindsight...
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM > From: "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> > To: "Richard Kenner" <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> > Cc: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com>, "GCC Development" > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, siddh...@gotplt.org > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> > wrote: > > > > > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly > > > not > > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, > > > but > > > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > > > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > > > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > > > > I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry. > > I don't understand these ramblings either. LLNL sure seems to have > flirted with LLVM: > https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open-source-fortran-compiler-technology > https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608523 > https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/wiki/Install-ROSE-with-Clang-as-frontend >
