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

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#121

Post by xpe »

kybernetyk wrote: post #97

I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that. Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.

> I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that.

What positive reasons can you offer that suggest Amazon will be a good steward for Rust's continued success?

You think Rust has failed? Wow. What are your expectations for a new language to 'overtake' a behemoth in terms of adoption? Can you share any examples that underlie your expectations?

I admit ignorance when it comes to Amazon's contributions to the open source community. This is not willful -- I just have not noticed much discussion or mention of them. (We all know about their contributions to computing infrastructure of course.)

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#122

Post by yannoninator »

secuthro22 wrote: post #113
yannoninator wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"? Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companie…

You've replied yet again without actually stating what your concerns are. Lol "gaslighting". Ok.

So you're saying there isn't an issue with the Rust foundation's governance then?

Now I'm assuming you just jumped into the comments without understanding anything no?

EDIT:

> We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.

@stale2002 I already mentioned this issue. However the user @secuthro22 continued trolling further with: "WhAT cONCerns?"

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#123

Post by secuthro22 »

yannoninator wrote: post #122
secuthro22 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've replied yet again without actually stating what your concerns are. Lol "gaslighting". Ok.

So you're saying there isn't an issue with the Rust foundation's governance then? Now I'm assuming you just jumped into the comments without understanding anything no? EDIT: > We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust. @stale2002 I already mentioned this issue. However the user @secuthro22 continued trolling further with…

I wouldn't know. There might be, which is why I've asked you multiple times to explain the issue to me and yet you have neglected to do so.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#125

Post by jonas21 »

rst wrote: post #90
jdblair wrote: post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

Rust isn't the only community that's at risk of getting coopted by corporate sponsors. The PostgreSQL core team now has an explicit policy that no single company employs more than half its members -- but to follow it, last year, they had to expand membership (after companies employing 50% of the prior core team merged, and they didn't want to boot anyone). https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre.…

Oddly enough, the post you linked to is from the blog of Fundación PostgreSQL, which is also being discussed on HN today due to a dispute with the PostgreSQL core team:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512274

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#126

Post by hu3 »

kreetx wrote: post #77
freditup wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems. Yes, it typically is. However making non-falsifiable public accusations that individuals are doing "dirty shit" is not keeping things "private" and is even worse than making a concrete public statement about a concern you may have.

Perhaps it isn't and it's actually good not to go very confrontational right from the start?

Given the tweets, I think we are past the point of no confrontation.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#127

Post by ilaksh »

marricks wrote: post #49
kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get th…

I assume that Amazon getting too much control is a real problem. But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or at least he is the one that is supposed to write articles about what Rust is about. Not someone from Amazon or anywhere else.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#129

Post by skohan »

jdblair wrote: post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

Honestly this is what I was afraid of when Mozilla backed off on Rust support and Amazon and others stepped in to fill the gap. One of the main selling points for me to start learning Rust was the truly open-source pedigree - with Mozilla backing it there seemed to be very few perverse incentives going against Rust's goals of having a great developer story.

If Amazon would be in the drivers' seat, that incentive structure would seem much less clear.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#130

Post by skohan »

rst wrote: post #90
jdblair wrote: post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

Rust isn't the only community that's at risk of getting coopted by corporate sponsors. The PostgreSQL core team now has an explicit policy that no single company employs more than half its members -- but to follow it, last year, they had to expand membership (after companies employing 50% of the prior core team merged, and they didn't want to boot anyone). https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre.…

Honestly that's also sort of a sad statement on the current state of affairs as far as corporate consolidation goes these days.
Post reply on HN