https://andrewkelley.me/post/why-donating-to-musl-libc-project.htmldidnt read yet, wanna read. will put my very important opinion later. first want collective brain chew on that.
>>108813029didn't read any won't read, but glibc is a bloated mess that constantly breaks backwards compatibility so I'm all for musl
>>108813029>$150/month (10% of my income)Not-so-subtle way to announce to the world that you're poor as fuck
> Donations to open-source projects are not a zero sum game.no proofs provided. imo, you donated - you lost money, a dude, who received became richer, right. whats so complicated 'bout that? Zigman likes to complicate things.> One thing that is crystal clear is that the V author succeeded in creating hype. He got people excited about ambitious features - so excited that they were willing to donate some cash. This made me think of another open source project in the opposite category.> musl libc: a project with no hype but huge impactdoubt. if its a huge impact then there will be hype, obviously generated by the "huge impact". no fire without a smoke..
>>108813195large and serious projects often don't generate hype because they have serious people that are not in it for the money. The main giveaway is that big projects often come from the community, rather than private companies trying to make cash.for instance, the people behind BusyBox are serious enough about their involvement that they refused millions in settlements against OEMs, instead asking that they comply with their license and release their source code.musl does have some hype, especially for people that are trying to build an ecosysten without glibc's LGPL. libc falls under the category of APIs, meaning you can interface with any libc, even though your program links with glibc, it could theoretically be replaced by macos's libc. But as soon as you start to use glibc specific functions, you're no longer using the 'libc api', now you need to comply with the LGPL. musl actually lets you do that, which is critical for languages like rust that have such a disdain for coypleft, and would rather use the corporate-boot-licking mit or bsd licenses.
>muslim libc
> Mentorship> Especially in the early stages of the Zig project, but still to this day, I asked question after question in the #musl IRC channel, and the musl community patiently and expertly indulged them. Sometimes my questions were not even musl-related, but just more about how the Linux kernel works.> I didn't start off as an expert systems programmer when I started Zig, but the musl community has mentored me over the years.so, i may conclude/approximate that musl => Zig>>108813263ye, strange name>>108813244sorry, i may be too primitive to grasp all the statement.. so its killing feature is about staying in the same loicense, like GNU license to guard against evil corporations at which libc fails?
>>108813324basically, libc is the centerpiece of all operating systems and most OS provide their own libc which has features from the C standard and OS-specific features. The standard is often outdated and lacks a lot of things, so if you need to do something efficiently, you have to use features from your vendor's libc.on linux, glibc (LGPL) is the default, and many program actively require specific features from glibc. glibc is also pretty much impossible to statically link, meaning that the best way to distribute software on linux is to give it's source code to distro maintainers, who can then package your program.musl (MIT) tries it's best to emulate glibc features, without being GPL'd or requiring dynamic linking. so a lot of companies that need to distribute closed-source software on linux have to use musl.glibc is also infamous for breaking compatibility, meaning that a program compiled with glibc 3.21 won't run with glibc 3.20, but will likely run with 3.22. the standard way of dealing with this problem is to compile with the oldest compatible glibc version, or just let distro maintainers do it for you. this is not by design, but since distributing pre-built binaries is so difficult, glibc artificially encouraged open source as the only way to distribute software.
> Much of the Zig standard library is ported from musl> This has prevented countless bugs and made things "just work" in general. Without this head start, the Zig project would have had to spend more time on Linux system interface and less on everything else.soo, the approx is correct. that explains why Google's Go was forced to do linux syscalls, they had no other choice..> Berkeley SoftFloat was written by me, John R. Hauser. Funding for the development of SoftFloat Release 3 and later was provided indirectly by portions of grants to U.C. Berkeley from Microsoft, Intel, DARPA, Nokia, NVIDIA, Oracle, Samsung, and Google, and by a portion of a U.C. Discovery Grant. The SoftFloat documentation has more details.strangely though its based on those evil corpos grants. ama dig-surfing clicking those pages...>>108813460>glibc is also pretty much impossible to statically linkye, i remember, i watch Zigman's video, the most impressive video of him, imo. so musl is, contrary what previously said, the libc confines into GPL and musl eases into MITthough ama the follower of dynamism, not interested in staticly built libraries for the runtime.
> Now if I'm being honest about my motivations for this blog post, it's that I want to prove that open source funding is not a zero-sum game. If there's anything we've learned from the V language Internet drama that has unfolded over the past few days, it's that open source projects have to do marketing if they want to get financial support.wtf, hehehe. still no proofs.> Will you help me prove my point?> If enough people start pledging donations to Zig when reading this, and the $150/month is recovered, then this little stunt will have been a proof-of-concept of one open source project running a fund-raiser for another one. (To be clear my donations to musl are not conditional; regardless of the outcome I will continue to donate.)this is not a proof mr. Zigman, this is sorta financial pyramid. ooke, im done reading.
>>108813053>bloatedprobably>breaks backward compatibilityglibc uses versioned symbols and doesn't break (user-space) backwards compatibility. the only thing they "break" is raising the minimal kernel version required from time to time, which is something tracked and documented.if there is something valid to complain about, it's the impenetrable code (from a reviewer/contributor PoV).
