Why are BSD alternatives always worse than their GPL counterparts?

>>57472785
community and corporate support is tiny in comparison

glad to know that you think screen is better than tmux

File: when-you-program-open-source-youre-programming-communism.jpg (75KB, 507x679px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 507x679px

because GPL rats always steal free BSD code and make it nonfree

>>57472785
Because you touch yourself at night.

>>57472785
Possibly simply lack of developers, but that in and of itself may be a consequence of the license (why contribute publicly when it's so much easier, legally, to just fork privately? Do you have any idea how ridiculous the bureaucracy gets when trying to hire people to work on public software?)

Because in the Unix world, worse is better.

>>57476199
Too bad only the opposite is true because it would be a sensible point otherwise.

>>57477943
Hm? It's pretty common to take BSD code and put it into a GPL project, improving the GPL project and essentially making the BSD code GPL.


But if BSDfags don't like this, they shouldn't like BSD.

>clang worse than gcc
>freebsd worse than gnu/linux
lel

>>57478937
Clang has better debug output but that's about it. GCC still produces faster code with less compiler bugs. And since GCC has no problem with taking from Clang but Clang can't take code from GCC good luck ever stopping that

>>57478971
both are written in C++, so shit by default