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

Hard Rust requirements from May onward

lists.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 797 posts

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#111

Post by tialaramex »

uecker wrote: post #5
CartwheelLinux wrote: post #2

The language is tough love, and I think it's important despite what the first respondent has said. Much of the language used seems to stem from nauseating interactions that have occured in kernel world around rust usage. I'm not a big fan of rust for reasons that were not brought up during the kernel discussions, but I'm also not an opponent of moving forward. I don't quite understand the pushback against memory safe…

I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong. IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste. We have seen the same thing in the past with a push towards C++, Java, managed languages. What is new is that the free software movement is now controlled so much by corporate interests that some of these changes are pushed through aggressively against the interest…

> I think the spin that Rust is necessarily the way forward is what is wrong.

I haven't seen this from Rust. Obviously lots of us think that Rust is the way forward for us but I think the problem you're talking about is that nobody offered any alternatives you liked better and that's not on Rust.

If Bob is ordering pizza for everybody who wants one, it is not the case that "Pizza is necessarily the way forward", and it's not Bob's fault that you can't have sliders, I think if you want sliders you're going to need to order them yourself and "Pizza is the way forward" is merely the default when you don't and people are hungry.

Dave Abraham's Hylo is an example of somebody offering to order sushi in this analogy. It's not yet clear whether Dave knows a Sushi place that delivers here, or how much Sushi would be but that's what having another way forward could look like.

In C++ they've got profiles, which is, generously, "Concepts of a plan" for a way forward and in C... I mean, it's not your focus, but nobody is looking at this right? Maybe Fil-C is your future? I note that Fil-C doesn't work on these obsolete targets either.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#112

Post by noisem4ker »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #96
hofrogs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I noticed that under a lot of videos mentioning rust in kernel, or rust in general there's a high chance that the comment section will just be straight up lifted from 4chan pol or a similar place

Is there any particular reason for this? Do they not agree with the code of conduct more than normal?

Complete disagreement with codes of conduct and the typical political orientation of their proponents. Also, pure contrarian spirit.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#113

Post by kaoD »

kasabali wrote: post #106
kaoD wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be misunderstanding here but... what you're saying is that Rust programs can still have bugs? Isn't that the same as other programs except Rust prevents the most disastrous and common bugs that lead to most CVEs? If I got that right, how is "it's still not perfect" an argument? Agree with the Cargo objection.

If perfect isn't needed, we might as well stick with the 20+ years old mature codebase, there's no need to move to another language. I mean the "code to parse .deb, .ar, .tar," is done and whatever memory bugs should've been already fixed . Use Rust for evergreen projects by all means, just leave mature tested systems alone, please.

I don't follow how from "better but not perfect is better than worse" you conclude that.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#114

Post by [deleted] »

cmm11 wrote: post #54

If anyone has a problem with the language used in the email, I would remind you that this is the same person who is maintainer for debian's keepassxc packages. Here's a thread of them insulting upstream developers & users of the Debian packages. https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10725

[deleted]

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#115

Post by viraptor »

aragilar wrote: post #103
mdhb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a Rust or even a systems language guy but it’s not “for some reason”. The reason is actually incredibly clear and about removing the single largest surface area of security problems in the entire history of Linux.

Is it the largest though? Based on https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/ , it would be part of #6 or #8. While one can always walk and chew gum at the same time (and those rewriting system software are likely not the same people who need to design systems with less flawed access control), replacing stable software is not without risk (e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/1043103/ , which is an instance of #6 caused by rust…

Owasp deals with web security only. That whole area is biased towards php/ruby/js/python/beam where those issues don't exist outside of native modules.

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabilities-by-types.php is a bit more clear. It's xss, SQL, then memory. The first two are not possible to enforce a fix on - you can always make a decision to do something bad with no visible annotation. Even then, rich types like in rust make safe interfaces easier to produce. But rust tackles the next class of issues - one that you can verify to be safe or require an explicit "unsafe" around it.

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#116

Post by thiht »

noosphr wrote: post #13

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences. They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

> I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries.

Not sure how that’s relevant when CL is basically dead and no one wants to work with it, while Rust is flourishing and delivering value

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#117

Post by [deleted] »

thiht wrote: post #116
noosphr wrote: post #13

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences. They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

> I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. Not sure how that’s relevant when CL is basically dead and no one wants to work with it, while Rust is flourishing and delivering value

[deleted]

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#118

Post by [deleted] »

noosphr wrote: post #13

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences. They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

[deleted]

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#119

Post by hofrogs »

alt187 wrote: post #62
tcfhgj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't either, until I read comments on Rust in Linux on social media outside HN. Apparently, Rust is part of the "woke agenda"

People are (understandably) sick of the fact that for whatever reason, the biggest proponents of Rust are insufferable. Personally, I'm simply bothered by the fact that (one of?) the most famous figure of Rust on Linux and Rust Forever consumes and advocates for pornography that's illegal in my country, without being held accountable by the community. From what I could piece together, the only group who ever cried wo…

Who are you talking about? Asking in good faith, I never heard of that controversy before

Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

#120

Post by opengrass »

noosphr wrote: post #13

I don't get the need for Rust since I happily compile common lisp to machine code when I need fast binaries. But the people who use the language have an amazing talent to make people on the fence hate them within half a dozen sentences. They remind me of Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages from their barbarous religions with human sacrifice to the civilised religion with burning heretics.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN