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

Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#121

Post by nickpsecurity »

pessimizer wrote: post #44
nickpsecurity wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT licensed code is a gift. A gift indeed doesn't require the recipient to give back anything related to the gift. A "gift" requiring GPL-like conditions isn't really a gift in the common sense. It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. They're giving while also asserting control over others' lives, hoping for a specific outcome. That's not just a gift.…

> It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. The obligation is not to the author of the code, it is to the public. MIT-style licenses are gifts to people and companies who produce code and software, copyleft licenses are gifts to the public. I don't give a shit about the happiness of programmers any more than the happiness of garbage collectors, sorry. I d…

A gift is when you do something without expecting anything in return, esp compensation.

If I use GPL'd code, I have to keep releasing my modifications for free because it's mandated. I have to do that even if I do 1000 hours of labor but they gave me 30 min of it. So, it's also near-infinite work required in return for finite work they did. And I have to bind others to this with my own work.

That's not someone giving me a gift. I'm not sure what to call that except a collective work with permanent obligations for all parties. It's more like a job or corporate charter or something. I like another person's claim that it's creating property with requirements for those using it (which copyright certainly does).

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#122

Post by lumb63 »

sneak wrote: post #28
p0w3n3d wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because otherwise big tech companies will take it and modify and release hardware with it without releasing patches etc? Basically being selfish and greedy?

It is neither selfish nor greedy to accept and use a gift freely given to you. Receiving a gift does not confer obligations on the recipient.

Gifts definitely confer obligations on the recipient. You can experience this firsthand: take the next gift a loved one gives you, and then sell it, and let them know. Please report back on how you selling their gift impacts your relationship with that person.

People can license their code however they please, but comparing open source software to a gift is not an argument for permissive licenses.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#123

Post by nickpsecurity »

imiric wrote: post #40
nickpsecurity wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT licensed code is a gift. A gift indeed doesn't require the recipient to give back anything related to the gift. A "gift" requiring GPL-like conditions isn't really a gift in the common sense. It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. They're giving while also asserting control over others' lives, hoping for a specific outcome. That's not just a gift.…

A gift where the recipient can remove the freedoms that they've been enjoying themselves is a bad deal for ensuring those freedoms are available to everyone. A permissive license is a terrible idea for a F/LOSS kernel. This is the paradox of tolerance, essentially. Also, seeing F/LOSS as a "gift" is an awful way of looking at it.

They can't remove it. They gave it to you. They just don't have to keep giving you more stuff. Many people think they're owed more software, including fixes to software, without compensating the laborer. That worldview is the real problem.

So, we have a variety of licensing styles that meet various goals. People can pick what suits their needs and wants. That's a good thing.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#124

Post by sheepscreek »

hexagonal-sun wrote: post #2

Hello! For the past 8 months, or so, I've been working on a project to create a Linux-compatible kernel in nothing but Rust and assembly. I finally feel as though I have enough written that I'd like to share it with the community! I'm currently targeting the ARM64 arch, as that's what I know best. It runs on qemu as well as various dev boards that I've got lying around (pi4, jetson nano, AMD Kria, imx8, etc). It has…

Very impressive and I like how accessible the codebase is. Plus safe Rust makes it very hard to shoot yourself on the foot, which is good for outside contributions. Great work!

After you got the busybox shell running, how long did it take to add vim support? What challenges did you face? Did you cross-compile it?

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#125

Post by fragmede »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #121
pessimizer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. The obligation is not to the author of the code, it is to the public. MIT-style licenses are gifts to people and companies who produce code and software, copyleft licenses are gifts to the public. I don't give a shit about the happiness of programmers any more than the happiness of garbage collectors, sorry. I d…

A gift is when you do something without expecting anything in return, esp compensation. If I use GPL'd code, I have to keep releasing my modifications for free because it's mandated. I have to do that even if I do 1000 hours of labor but they gave me 30 min of it. So, it's also near-infinite work required in return for finite work they did. And I have to bind others to this with my own work. That's not someone giving…

> If I use GPL'd code, I have to keep releasing my modifications for free because it's mandated.

Pedantically, only recipients of your updated binary are owed updated source, so if you're not distributing that binary to the whole world, you're not required to release updated source to the whole world. Kind of a nitpick, but maybe not.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#126

Post by fortran77 »

sheepscreek wrote: post #124
hexagonal-sun wrote: post #2

Hello! For the past 8 months, or so, I've been working on a project to create a Linux-compatible kernel in nothing but Rust and assembly. I finally feel as though I have enough written that I'd like to share it with the community! I'm currently targeting the ARM64 arch, as that's what I know best. It runs on qemu as well as various dev boards that I've got lying around (pi4, jetson nano, AMD Kria, imx8, etc). It has…

Very impressive and I like how accessible the codebase is. Plus safe Rust makes it very hard to shoot yourself on the foot, which is good for outside contributions. Great work! After you got the busybox shell running, how long did it take to add vim support? What challenges did you face? Did you cross-compile it?

BUt it's not "safe" because it's mixed with assembly

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#127

Post by tingletech »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #92
tingletech wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a "pushover" license?

Permissive license + complaining when companies don't contribute back from their forks.

Do rust projects have a reputation for complaining about corporate forks not contributing back code?

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#128

Post by scottlamb »

fortran77 wrote: post #126
sheepscreek wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very impressive and I like how accessible the codebase is. Plus safe Rust makes it very hard to shoot yourself on the foot, which is good for outside contributions. Great work! After you got the busybox shell running, how long did it take to add vim support? What challenges did you face? Did you cross-compile it?

BUt it's not "safe" because it's mixed with assembly

There are no programs written in 100% safe Rust—the std library is written with unsafe as needed. But typically the majority of lines in the program—sometimes even all outside std or some well-audited foundational creates—are safe. Those lines can not directly cause any unsoundness, which has tremendous value.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#129

Post by rcxdude »

boguscoder wrote: post #62
rcxdude wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, for example embassy-rs is an RTOS that uses rust async on tiny microcontrollers. You can hook task execution up to a main loop and interrupts pretty easily. (And RTIC is another, more radically simple version which also uses async but just runs everything in interrupt handlers and uses the interrupt priority and nesting capability of most micros to do the scheduling)

Sorry for nit but embassy is not a RTOS (or any OS), its a framework

The difference becomes a bit murky at this level. For example embassy comes with a lot more things I would consider OS-related than FreeRTOS does.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#130

Post by loeg »

fortran77 wrote: post #126
sheepscreek wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very impressive and I like how accessible the codebase is. Plus safe Rust makes it very hard to shoot yourself on the foot, which is good for outside contributions. Great work! After you got the busybox shell running, how long did it take to add vim support? What challenges did you face? Did you cross-compile it?

BUt it's not "safe" because it's mixed with assembly

This has been discussed ad nauseam and this adds nothing new. There's value in the memory safety for the majority of the code even if there are some escape valves ("unsafe" keyword, assembly).
Post reply on HN