Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 365 posts

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#291

Post by bluGill »

pjmlp wrote: post #282
_ph_ wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With GPL there is a legal tool to force contribution, though. No, for practical purposes, there is not. You can only enforce delivery of the source when a product based on GPL software gets delivered. But of course companies, which create software, know about this. Any usage of GPL software for delivered products only happens after the decision to publish the created software has been made. In doubt, companies tend t…

So now Sony gets to deliver PS4 OS and you get zilch, nada, besides a few insignificant pull requests, enjoy the license.

In practice companies are more likely to upstream non-gpl not less. With GPL they decide to use it without allowing any change, or they don't use it at all. With more liberal licenses they upstream anything that isn't core value because the cost of maintaining a fork is higher the more they are different.

GPL advocates try to claim otherwise of course.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#292

Post by bluGill »

fractalb wrote: post #203
woodruffw wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm concerned about the gradual move from GCC to LLVM. The lack of copyleft protections on LLVM means that it's much more dependent on corporate sponsorship, and means that there's a risk that major improvements to LLVM compilers will only become available as proprietary products. As someone who works within LLVM professionally, I don't think this is particularly likely -- compilers are massive and complicated beas…

What if those bigcorps don't merge some improvements for getting an edge over the competitors? And, what if every one of those bigcorps do the same? How would that impact the project in the future?

They pay the costs of maintaining their fork. Thus there will be constant internal chatter of is the non-merged stuff really valuable enough considering the cost of maintenance. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no as well. So overall that is a long term win.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#293

Post by fluffything »

pjmlp wrote: post #216
woodruffw wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm concerned about the gradual move from GCC to LLVM. The lack of copyleft protections on LLVM means that it's much more dependent on corporate sponsorship, and means that there's a risk that major improvements to LLVM compilers will only become available as proprietary products. As someone who works within LLVM professionally, I don't think this is particularly likely -- compilers are massive and complicated beas…

I don't consider the improvements that ARM, Apple, Sony, CodePlay, NVidia, AMD, among others, don't upstream due to IP considerations or revealing of hardware secrets, niche.

Upstreaming non-GPL code is much easier for these companies to upstream GPL code, because a GPL upstream can "accidentally" leak all the IP of that company by requiring that company to publish all of its software.

So the current options are: these companies don't open-source anything (which is what you get with GPL), or they open-source something (which is what you get with BSD, and in practice they open source a lot).

The claim that with the GPL they would open source _everything_ isn't true; they would just not open source anything instead. I also don't see any current legal framework that would allow them to opens ource everything without loosing a significant competitive advantage, and am very skeptical that such a framework can be conceived.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#294

Post by pjmlp »

nix23 wrote: post #287
pjmlp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, now you get to enjoy all those PS4 optimizations, and watchOS bitcode portability fixes in LLVM.

Something like that? https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-Tha... or that: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15624

No, something like the PS4 CPU features that don't get upstreamed because they might provide clues how to bipass PS 4 security.

There are some talks from Sony at LLVM meetings regarding those.

That PR from Apple has nothing to do with the bitcode reference I made.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#295

Post by pjmlp »

bluGill wrote: post #291
pjmlp wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now Sony gets to deliver PS4 OS and you get zilch, nada, besides a few insignificant pull requests, enjoy the license.

In practice companies are more likely to upstream non-gpl not less. With GPL they decide to use it without allowing any change, or they don't use it at all. With more liberal licenses they upstream anything that isn't core value because the cost of maintaining a fork is higher the more they are different. GPL advocates try to claim otherwise of course.

I would be happily using HP-UX, Solaris and Aix to this day, so don't mistake my philosophical questions as a GPL advocate, just don't be surprised how the IT landscape will look like when GCC and Linux are no longer around.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#296

Post by pjmlp »

nix23 wrote: post #286
zokula wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LMAO none of the BSD's have not been superior to Linux in over 20 years. Linux has been faster, more stable and more secure then any of the *BSD's for over a decade now.

>Linux has been faster, more stable and more secure then any of the *BSD's for over a decade now. Can you prove that? EMC, Netflix and Sony thinks otherwise. EDIT: And please stop with that LMAO (Sound like a childish Child from reddit)

They do, Sony also upstreams more stuff from their Android phones into AOSP than PS4 OS into FreeBSD, guess why.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#297

Post by pjmlp »

fluffything wrote: post #293
pjmlp wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider the improvements that ARM, Apple, Sony, CodePlay, NVidia, AMD, among others, don't upstream due to IP considerations or revealing of hardware secrets, niche.

Upstreaming non-GPL code is much easier for these companies to upstream GPL code, because a GPL upstream can "accidentally" leak all the IP of that company by requiring that company to publish all of its software. So the current options are: these companies don't open-source anything (which is what you get with GPL), or they open-source something (which is what you get with BSD, and in practice they open source a lot…

On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around.

Since I am a commercial software user for most part, this is more of a philosophical question than anything else.

Lets see how long Linux will hold out against the new generation of IoT OSes all being MIT/BSD based, and what the bazaar will get out of them.

Or how long GCC will hold, when all major OSes use clang as their default compiler, and then how the baazar will go from there on.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#298

Post by nix23 »

pjmlp wrote: post #294
nix23 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like that? https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Sony-Tha... or that: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15624

No, something like the PS4 CPU features that don't get upstreamed because they might provide clues how to bipass PS 4 security. There are some talks from Sony at LLVM meetings regarding those. That PR from Apple has nothing to do with the bitcode reference I made.

Why do i want a PS4 specific cpu-drm feature in a generic Compiler?

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#299

Post by ksec »

pjmlp wrote: post #295
bluGill wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice companies are more likely to upstream non-gpl not less. With GPL they decide to use it without allowing any change, or they don't use it at all. With more liberal licenses they upstream anything that isn't core value because the cost of maintaining a fork is higher the more they are different. GPL advocates try to claim otherwise of course.

I would be happily using HP-UX, Solaris and Aix to this day, so don't mistake my philosophical questions as a GPL advocate, just don't be surprised how the IT landscape will look like when GCC and Linux are no longer around.

Do you think there will be a possibility someday Linux will be replaced, both on Mobile ( Android ) and on Server?

I keep wondering if Microsoft opens up the Windows Kernel ( And Kernel only ), would it change the landscape much.

Re: Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust

#300

Post by nix23 »

pjmlp wrote: post #296
nix23 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Linux has been faster, more stable and more secure then any of the *BSD's for over a decade now. Can you prove that? EMC, Netflix and Sony thinks otherwise. EDIT: And please stop with that LMAO (Sound like a childish Child from reddit)

They do, Sony also upstreams more stuff from their Android phones into AOSP than PS4 OS into FreeBSD, guess why.

>They do

?? What?

>guess why

Because protecting your games is kind of important for a Gaming-Console.

Your answered your own question:

>No, something like the PS4 CPU features that don't get upstreamed because they might provide clues how to bipass PS 4 security.

Post reply on HN