"The musl libc project has released version 1.0, the result of three years of development and testing. Musl is a lightweight, fast, simple, MIT-licensed, correctness-oriented alternative to the GNU C library (glibc), uClibc, or Android's Bionic. At this point musl provides all mandatory C99 and POSIX interfaces (plus a lot of widely-used extensions), and well over 5000 packages are known to build successfully against musl.
Several options are available for trying musl. Compiler toolchains are available from the musl-cross project, and several new musl-based Linux distributions are already available (Sabotage and Snowflake, among others). Some well-established distributions including OpenWRT and Gentoo are in the process of adding musl-based variants, and others (Aboriginal, Alpine, Bedrock, Dragora) are adopting musl as their default libc."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Techwolf on Thursday March 20 2014, @02:22PM
This is the first time I have heard of this new lib. What was the reasoning on re-inventing the wheel? Licienceing problems, arrogent devolopers on other project, or just for the hell of it?
(Score: 5, Informative) by dr zim on Thursday March 20 2014, @02:46PM
They've carefully hidden that information on their website.... http://www.musl-libc.org/intro.html [musl-libc.org]
(Score: 1) by Techwolf on Thursday March 20 2014, @09:25PM
Whoops, I should been more clear on why I was asking. I was on a tablet device tethered to a phone that was in G?? mode, the slowest mode there is. It would have taken 30 minutes to over an hour to view/read the site linked.
Besides, old habits die hard. You are not supposed to read the articial. Right? Right?
I though this site was for ducussions and figure I would get a good answer withen 10 minute or so. As I type this, I see you got +5 and I got -1, wth?! That was a sersious question and got marked flamebait. If I really wanted to troll, I would have come up with something a lot better then that.
Looks like I will have to get the proper answer tomorrow when I get on a braodband connection.
(Score: 1) by dr zim on Friday March 21 2014, @04:19PM
Meh, it's just the internet, nothing to lose sleep over
:) FWIW, I took your question as a serious one and started to answer in my own words, but the site had answered it so much better. I should have not tried to be cute about it, but after reading so many 'let me ask the community because I can't be bothered to google' posts in the last few weeks, it was too easy for me to lump your post in with those. Anyway, I hope you got what you wanted from the link. Please don't let a grumpy old ass like me turn you off to the site.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @03:08PM
This is the first time I have heard of this new lib.
Good for you?
What was the reasoning on re-inventing the wheel? Licienceing problems, arrogent devolopers on other project, or just for the hell of it?
To make something better than the shitpile called glibc.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @03:12PM
Looks like they are also auditing the gcc libc and a few others also. This I would say is a good thing. A little competition seems to help gcc.
Looks like they are sprinkling in a bit of C11 only work too.
This shows better what they are thinking is wrong in their code
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @04:13PM
They obviously created it so some no-name mouth breather like yourself would get furiously butt hurt.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheloniousToady on Thursday March 20 2014, @05:05PM
Personally, I think it's part of the ongoing conspiracy to subvert our Software Freedom by providing technically superior software under a license that's more permissive than the GPL. Complaints from Richard Stallman [slashdot.org] are sure to follow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 21 2014, @08:50AM
"technically superior" is very much in the eyes of the beholder, or at least in the eyes of the person deciding on the testing criteria. Even then, today gcc still wins in almost all categories that matter, and is better for you too.
And don't forget, RMS's criteria is likely not the same as yours, so it's silly to interpret his comments through what you think is important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 21 2014, @12:10PM
Substitute "Religious Figure of Your Choice" for "RMS" and I think you've just made a statement about religion. Of course it's silly to question the wisdom of any god/prophet/seer on purely logical grounds. These things are a matter of faith, and they must be accepted completely without being questioned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20 2014, @05:19PM
Ulrich Drepper was the reason it was started.