<story><title>FreeBSD Is No Longer Building GCC By Default</title><url>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=MTQ1ODc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>leoh</author><text>I could be wrong, but it really seems to me that this is a very good, but somewhat indirect example of Apple&amp;#x27;s positive influence in the software world. By relying so heavily on LLVM it seems that they helped push LLVM to more robust maturity. Not something a lot of people talk about when they talk about LLVM ;p.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DannyBee</author><text>This is a very interesting perspective on LLVM. I don&amp;#x27;t believe Apple has the most contributors (IE compared to the community as a whole), and i don&amp;#x27;t think they ever did.&lt;p&gt;They also haven&amp;#x27;t pushed it as much as you&amp;#x27;d think.
For example, Apple had precisely nothing to do with Linux or FreeBSD support for LLVM.&lt;p&gt;Now, you could definitely make your statement about &lt;i&gt;clang&lt;/i&gt;, but not LLVM itself.  Apple deserves a lot of credit for pushing clang forward.&lt;p&gt;On the LLVM side, however, since about 2 years ago, Google has probably has as much impact on LLVM as Apple, and you hear &lt;i&gt;nothing&lt;/i&gt; about this, because they don&amp;#x27;t hold external developer conferences talking about it.&lt;p&gt;(You can count the number of Google presos at recent developer meetings if you want a good indication of how involved they are).&lt;p&gt;Now, of course, in reality, the credit should go to the people doing the work, regardless of where they work, but HN and other places always like to set up these things up as if they are really corporate projects.</text></comment>
<story><title>FreeBSD Is No Longer Building GCC By Default</title><url>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&amp;px=MTQ1ODc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>leoh</author><text>I could be wrong, but it really seems to me that this is a very good, but somewhat indirect example of Apple&amp;#x27;s positive influence in the software world. By relying so heavily on LLVM it seems that they helped push LLVM to more robust maturity. Not something a lot of people talk about when they talk about LLVM ;p.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gmrple</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t really think you can say that. It&amp;#x27;s not because they did something particularly positive, but more because they did something negative that had positive side effects. A positive externality maybe?</text></comment>