21–30 of 542 posts
To put things in context, Linus is being reasonable and wise and well-mannered once again. Wouldn't mind reading a few juicy expletives, to be honest.
I wonder if he'll end up regretting opening this particular Pandora's box or will things stabilize eventually.
I am the only one who would have a hard time to collaborate on a project where the "collaborators" start their message with > You need to realize that > (a) reality trumps fantasy ?
Sometimes you need to stress the difference betwen “my opinion” (as in “Kernel development requires greater safety standards”) and “facts” (“safety does not exist in software because it does not control the hardware aspect”).
Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?
> Even "safe" rust code in user space will do things like panic when things go wrong (overflows, allocation failures, etc). If you don't realize that that is NOT some kind of true safely, I don't know what to say. When people say "safe" there's a pretty precise meaning and it's not this. Yes, anyone who believes rust is 100% "safe" (by any definition) is wrong. That's not something you learn in Kindergarten though, i…
You aren't safe on the FOB, in your car, in your barracks, or in your house. There are only degrees of safety. Very wise almost globally applicable words.
> Not completing the operation at all, is not really any better than getting the wrong answer, it's only more debuggable. Wouldn't be that sure about that. Getting the wrong answer can be a serious security problem. Not completing the operation... well, it is not good, but that's it.
Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?
I am the only one who would have a hard time to collaborate on a project where the "collaborators" start their message with > You need to realize that > (a) reality trumps fantasy ?
(a) that's the creator of Linux (b) see (a) above
Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?
Not all that familiar with the specifics of Rust, but I assume it’s “safety” is somewhat similar to Swift’s “safety,” so type safety and memory safety, which does not mean no crashes, just that you will e.g. crash on an array OOB error rather than start writing or reading to random bits of memory.
Rust's "safety" is memory safety. It's relatively well defined for a technical term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_safety edit: > Yeah I was just trying to provide a clear definition, I didn't think you were implying it was BS. (would have replied but I'm rate limited on HN - thanks dang!)
I know I was a little surprised when I was learning Swift after hearing it was called safe only to experience crashes with array OOB. Took some explanation and thinking to understand what was meant by safe.