The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 9, 2012 18:58 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: The return of the Unix wars? by marcH
Parent article: The return of the Unix wars?

Having a hard time understanding your factual criteria... if it's a fork of some commit way in the past then it's fragmentation, and if it never shared any ancestry then it's competition? Does this apply to Dalvik? But, I gotta say, dividing forks into competition and fragmentation groups doesn't seem like a real useful endeavor to me. Mere semantics.

> Your question has been answered above.

Where? Why should Jon have called out the GPL specifically? A little quick to whip out the troll pejorative aren't we?

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 9, 2012 19:32 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> Having a hard time understanding your factual criteria...

Try harder?

> But, I gotta say, dividing forks into competition and fragmentation groups doesn't seem like a real useful endeavor to me.

It's actually even more than useless: it's off-topic since LLVM is simply not a gcc fork. Another troll attempt?

> Why should Jon have called out the GPL specifically?

Crystal-clear explanation just a few posts above http://lwn.net/Articles/495998/
This is the post which you do not seem to have understood, either because of "mere semantics" problems or, maybe because of some emotional problems with the GPL? ("pedestal...")

> A little quick to whip out the troll pejorative aren't we?

No, not really... You actually sound too smart not to have understood the above explanation. Which means you are only pretending you did not. Bye.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 11, 2012 14:50 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

It was a simple question: why should the article have called out the GPL specifically? The link you give doesn't answer that. If, after so many words, there's still no clear answer, then I guess the article was fine as written.