Re: Swift is now open source (Apache 2 License)

[Gregory Casamento]

It's still relatively alarming that it has taken them so long to respond.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ivan Vučica <ivan@vucica.net> wrote:
> Once we use git, it is easy to move again.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015, 21:10 Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Luboš Doležel <lubos@dolezel.info> wrote:
>> > On 12/03/2015 08:22 PM, Maxthon Chan wrote:
>> >> On their side, I’m gonna go there and propose the option of using an
>> >> existing Foundation reimplementation in place of the version they
>> >> packed.
>> >
>> > Over the time that I've been analyzing OS X, how things work deep down,
>> > I came to the conclusion that developers at Apple must be *really* very
>> > bored.
>> >
>> > While on Linux, one can see the developers are lazy, strive for a clean
>> > and simple design, Apple's developers probably dream about what crazy
>> > complicated project of reimplementing something that has already been
>> > done to start next.
>> >
>> > A nice example are workqueues as used by GCD (libdispatch). They
>> > implemented on top of a portable pthread pool. Then they thought, hey,
>> > why don't we save us making maybe 1 system call, get the kernel
>> > needlessly involved in managing the thread pool and feel absolutely
>> > fantastic about it.
>> >
>> > Another example. Pthread locking primitives. On Linux, there is a single
>> > simple system call named futex. All the mutexes, conditions, r/w locks
>> > etc. are built on top of that.
>> > In Apple, they thought this would be way too simple. So instead, they
>> > introduced a dozen of system calls (psynch_*) with gazillions of
>> > parameters and very strange semantics. When I read through the
>> > implementation in XNU, I wonder why did someone torture himself so much.
>> >
>> > So when I see Apple redoing something, I'm just not surprised anymore.
>> > These folks don't want easy and simple. Because then they would have
>> > nothing to do and would get fired.
>> >
>> >> On our side, maybe it is time to scrap our CoreBase and reimplement
>> >> Base on top Apple’s CoreFoundation.
>> >
>> > a) That's a lot of work someone would have to do. And to little benefit,
>> > I'm afraid.
>> > b) Makes you depend on APSL'd code.
>>
>> Indeed
>>
>> > I'd rather suggest that GNUstep finally moves to Git so that I can
>> > contribute back more easily. Right now, it's easier for me to commit
>> > into my own gnustep-corebase fork on GitHub then to commit into SVN,
>> > wait for it to bubble to the Git mirror and merge it into the Darling
>> > fork.
>>
>> In process.  I am waiting on the guys on savannah to create the
>> relevant repos.   One issue which already comes to mind is that in
>> order to have multiple repos I have had to make a special request on
>> Savannah and it has taken them a week to respond to the first one.
>>
>> I believe we may want to review our ideas about moving to savannah
>> because of this.  On github or even when I use gitlab (on my own
>> server) it allows me to just add repos when I need them.
>>
>> > --
>> > Luboš Doležel
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss-gnustep mailing list
>> > Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>>
>>
>> GC
>> --
>> Gregory Casamento
>> GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
>> http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
>> http://ind.ie/phoenix/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
>> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep



-- 
Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
http://ind.ie/phoenix/