Do you have any evidence that Israeli-controlled accounts were operating on Twitch (a video-game livestreaming company), and that this required an entire country-level IP block after october 7th?
There's a great blog post[1] by one of the OpenBSD developers about why they did so. tl;dr using bitmasks necessitates namespaced enums/defines that take up horizontal space, strings are easier and don't need to go through the C pre-processor.
Nice find. That article is highly unconvincing though and mostly argues against straw men.
> Although using strings subverts C’s already weak type checking, that’s probably not a major concern. One can screw up bit masks by using || in place of |. Or, as above, one can incorrectly pack the magic array. It’s usually much easier to visually audit a string than the C code used to plaster a dozen option together.
It's pretty easy to design an interface that is way way less error-prone than strings (especially ones full of single-letter differences!) and the visual auditing argument falls apart as soon as you have to `snprintf()` some string together from parts.
This code is way more readable, way less error prone, more discoverable, faster and more easily extendable than strings:
Both these arch's are contingent on LLVM support, as there is no self-hosted backend (yet). m68k support was merged in LLVM 13, but I haven't seen anyone use it with Zig.
The comments complaining about the choice of license reminded me that a FSF licensing intern did the same, and demanded it be changed due to some false claim about it being a derivative work[1]. Let me remind everyone that there was probably a good reason for using a permissive license, and no-one has the right to demand changes based on their definition of freedom - unless they stepped up and contributed.
If this truly injures you, you can either do your own rewrite or, like Muse Group, outright buy the rights to the software and relicense.
Honestly, it sounds like they're deeply scared of long-standing FSF-backed software having to compete (or even be replaced) with alternatives that just happen not to be GPL (e.g. they have similar thoughts on LLVM/clang), to the point where they decide to troll the issue trackers. It feels really childish.
> with alternatives that just happen not to be GPL (e.g. they have similar thoughts on LLVM/clang)
LLVM/clang is worse than just GPL, as far as I understand the design of GCC is intentionally horribly bad to make it painful to integrate with a proprietary tool chain. Of course this means that things like refactoring support end up being basically impossible to build on GCC, so people move to clang out of necessity.
It's both a technical issue and a political issue; RMS himself has repeatedly advocated against interfaces that would expose internal representations that GCC uses because they could be used to build proprietary add-ons.
These days GCC does have a plugin interface, but they came up with a really funny hack to try to stop people from using proprietary plugins. Programs compiled with gcc can require linking with libgcc, and the libgcc license is "GPL, except it doesn't apply to software compiled with GCC and all-Free plugins". So their idea is that if you add a proprietary plug-in to GCC, that makes all code compiled like that have to be GPLed instead.
It is, of course, questionable whether this hack would hold up in court. It is also rather useless, because it's not hard to reimplement enough of libgcc to make it work. For example, the Linux kernel only links with libgcc for a few architectures.
> Honestly, it sounds like they're deeply scared of long-standing FSF-backed software having to compete (or even be replaced) with alternatives that just happen not to be GPL
They are, for good reason. Big companies hate open source, despite their claims to the contrary. Look at Apple's proprietary forks of all the BSD stuff, and handset manufacturers' proprietary forks of Android. The FSF should absolutely be doing everything in their power to minimize how often this happens.
That's an argument you can certainly make. Unfortunately for them, as it turns out, deciding licenses for other projects is not in their power, and trolling other projects' issue trackers is counter-productive to the goal of convincing them change their license.
Yeah and the open source people gave up, it’s like giving you a free recipe for a beef Wellington in a world they control of food. Nothing uses Darwin besides Apple
And? The source is there. There is no requirement to do extra work to make it useful for anyone but yourself. They did not even need to release the source, but they did.
You made a claim about "proprietary forks of all the BSD stuff". The kernel is open source. The rest of the OS is written from scratch by Apple, and originally by NeXT, and is not a fork of anything.
