> GCC stagnated before llvm/clang becomes noticeable player.
Became?
Recently, it seems like LLVM's libc++ has stagnated, and clang is basically just copying GCC. If GCC stagnated before, it's nice competition seems to've rekindled its fire. :p
> monopoly is not praised, but rather considered bad.
Because economic monopolies are not self-competitive like organisms are and use their market capture to extract more value, unlike CMake or Linux (probably).
> There are myriad of Linux distributives. Is it bad, as they compete each other?
In that the labor required to make and maintain a good distribution is divided among them, it can be considered bad. In that users have to choose between an array of similar things, it's also bad for them. (If the things are very different, the choice becomes clearer, but then we move away from competition and toward complementing in the ecosystem sense.)
Became?
Recently, it seems like LLVM's libc++ has stagnated, and clang is basically just copying GCC. If GCC stagnated before, it's nice competition seems to've rekindled its fire. :p
> monopoly is not praised, but rather considered bad.
Because economic monopolies are not self-competitive like organisms are and use their market capture to extract more value, unlike CMake or Linux (probably).
> There are myriad of Linux distributives. Is it bad, as they compete each other?
In that the labor required to make and maintain a good distribution is divided among them, it can be considered bad. In that users have to choose between an array of similar things, it's also bad for them. (If the things are very different, the choice becomes clearer, but then we move away from competition and toward complementing in the ecosystem sense.)