I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
twitter.com
I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
1–10 of 363 posts
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#2>> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla.
>> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects.
>> Why are we regressing here?
Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS.
Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue to grow and improve.
It is a delicate balance to accept help and resources, but not let Amazon take too much control.
What should be done?
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#3FOSS Projects should fight to maintain a healthy independence from corporate influence. That perfect balance ism difficult to define, much less maintain.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#4Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust?
As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#5Ohhhhhhh, this explains a lot of the "Rust is the next great thing" I keep seeing around. Amazon has taken a page out of Microsoft's 90s playbook of embracing stuff and astroturfing their extensions until they claim it as their own and extinguish competition.
I hope the Rust team finds a way out, but I suspect now that if Amazon has their hooks in it then they'll just fork it.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#6Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this.
I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1].
Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#7Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust? As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
Judging from Mozilla's past actions, Mozilla can't trust that it's free of manipulation from other companies like Google, etc.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#8Here is a Thread Reader view of these tweets.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#9>> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla. >> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects. >> Why are we regressing here? Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS. Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue…
Not let them have the foundation chair. I think Ashley would've made a great chairwoman, but she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#10Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust? As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc.
There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may also be affected", like Red Hat pulling the carpet under CentOS or many other examples.