This is backwards. GCC and the GNU project as a whole exist because proprietary software was "screwing over its customers" in ways rms and the other early FSF people couldn't accept. The "ideology" of free software is (and always has been) the primary motivation, not the "customer" or "technical excellence".
You can flame over that if you like (but please don't: just google the older flame wars from the 90's, this is depressingly well-travelled ground), but don't get confused over the motivations of the actors. The FSF has been nothing if not crystal clear about their priorities.
Not backwards, I think you got it. I lived through the flame wars in the 90s and really resonate with the message "Give us the damn source so we can change it to do what we want!"
The irony is that if folks are trying to check in changes into the GCC tree that allow for plug-in modules because that is what they want, and the community is denying those commits because they fear having a plug-in architecture would enable other people to do bad things. Well that is ironic that such changes would be denied based on a potential transgression for some of the users.
When I read the argument it sounded like what folks had been arguing on the other side back in the 90's, hence the irony.
Comments
This is backwards. GCC and the GNU project as a whole exist because proprietary software was "screwing over its customers" in ways rms and the other early FSF people couldn't accept. The "ideology" of free software is (and always has been) the primary motivation, not the "customer" or "technical excellence".
You can flame over that if you like (but please don't: just google the older flame wars from the 90's, this is depressingly well-travelled ground), but don't get confused over the motivations of the actors. The FSF has been nothing if not crystal clear about their priorities.
Not backwards, I think you got it. I lived through the flame wars in the 90s and really resonate with the message "Give us the damn source so we can change it to do what we want!"
The irony is that if folks are trying to check in changes into the GCC tree that allow for plug-in modules because that is what they want, and the community is denying those commits because they fear having a plug-in architecture would enable other people to do bad things. Well that is ironic that such changes would be denied based on a potential transgression for some of the users.
When I read the argument it sounded like what folks had been arguing on the other side back in the 90's, hence the irony.