Why musl libc over glibc?

Why wouldn't you use a better implimentation if you're not using GNU extensions anyway? Why not try to be ACTUALLY portable and not just GNU's definition of portable "compiler vendor lock in".

Is it impossible for programs written in glib to be run a musl system?

>GNU
>Not botnet
Why is it on 99% of machines running Linux then?

Attached: 1554183872825.jpg (1023x817, 120K)

What does that have to do with anything?
Why is Linux on 100% of machines running Linux?

you cant use linux without gnu

the linux kernel will not compile without gcc.

trust me, I'd like to as well.

Cringe

Attached: 1553886305715.png (394x329, 100K)

And GNUpilled

I have no idea if this even works but clangbuiltlinux.github.io/

>Instead of having a toolchain which respects my freedom, I would rather build my kernel with an even more bloated one which is a bait and switch funded by apple

Why do you itoddlers have to try and ruin everything?

i what?

I believe in competition. Having multiple libraries and compilers is a good thing. May the best one win, fuck socialism.

LLVM is not about competition, it's about hardware vendors trying to lock people in with proprietary compiler extensions, aka the opposite of competition.

glib and glibc are two different things

because you dont want communism in your system, trust me.

Then why would OP install musl?

becouse is not part of the leftist terror group know as GNU

To people who use musl because they hate gnu, do you guys use tcc instead of gcc

So in response you chose to use a libc written by a second leftist terror group which is even worse?

This
To bad software from big corperations dont want to change

What's a Linux?

because it's smaller

>the linux kernel will not compile without gcc.
Yes it does. On non x86* platforms linux has been buildable for years now, and for x86* vanilla 4.4.* builds straight out of the tar, and newer versions as of now only need few patches.

t. richard "package managers are bad because some people might use them to install proprietary software" stallman

why would you like to compile the kernel with an inferior compiler?

Exactly, GCC is decades old and too crusty to be useful anymore, LLVM on the other hand is library based so that anyone can utilize it to do many things

how do you replace glibc with musl i use arch btw

If you have to ask then you don't want to

step one don't use arch

>the linux kernel will not compile without gcc
False.
4.12 and versions around them were able to be compiled using clang without any patches.

Then maintainers added check that said "kernel requires GCC extensions" or some shit.

Doesn't this fag have package manager built in emacs?

step two.... heh heh heh. :P

Ability to read the implementation code without melting your eyeballs.

Use gentoo or void

Much lower memory usage. By default a thread with glibc eats up to 8m of memory, but with musl that's only 80k.

No the proprietary software is what's bad.