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

Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#141

Post by anthk »

bergkvist wrote: post #125
anthk wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust and C++'s overcomplex syntax are a nightmare to maintain and set. Go should have been the C succesor long ago, at least for 64 bit machines. In the end It's from the same people of Unix/C/Plan9, so they know their flaws and reasons. For C++ like performance, sadly there's nothing close to Rust, but Zig and Nim can be close and good enough. Inb4 "mah objects", just use Java or C# and forget C++ forever for OOP pr…

Golang is not a replacement for C. It is a much higher level language, which doesn't play well with systems programming/embedded development etc.

Tell that to the C creators.

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#143

Post by IshKebab »

uecker wrote: post #137
IshKebab wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewrite it in Rust isn't zealotry with no consideration of the trade-offs. It's simply that Rust is so much better than C that it's pretty much a no-brainer to rewrite C in Rust, or at least to attempt it. Sorry you can't see a good thing for what it is. > the language is a small part of a projects success Perhaps, but it is still a part of a project's success. Many projects written in PHP or Ruby or something other…

Rust is not a lot better than C. In many aspect, it is worse. It is better if you focus on a specific point (memory safety) and exaggerate its importance beyond all other considerations and ignoring all other options to make progress in this area. This is the zealotry part. For my personal IT security, people pushing Rust made things worse not better as I do not get security updates for parts of my OS (Debian) anymor…

> Rust is not a lot better than C.

Yes it is.

> In many aspect, it is worse.

"Many"? Compilation time sure. That's about it. Anyway things don't have to be pareto better to be better. A car is better than a horse, even though it can't travel over rough terrain as easily.

> It is better if you focus on a specific point (memory safety) and exaggerate its importance beyond all other considerations and ignoring all other options to make progress in this area. This is the zealotry part.

Memory safety is far from its only advantage over C. The fact that you think that is a strong signal you haven't ever seriously tried it.

> Also the supply chain risks in the Rust ecosystem are worrying.

What language is xz written in again?

> I also think that Rust is somewhat poorly designed in this regard compared to what is possible here

I disagree. Sure there are fancier type systems (Idris, Haskell, etc.), but they also have downsides. In any case we're comparing C and Rust. Rust is clearly way ahead of Rust. Your argument is "washing machines aren't better than hand washing because they don't also fold your clothes!"

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#144

Post by IshKebab »

overfeed wrote: post #139
IshKebab wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewrite it in Rust isn't zealotry with no consideration of the trade-offs. It's simply that Rust is so much better than C that it's pretty much a no-brainer to rewrite C in Rust, or at least to attempt it. Sorry you can't see a good thing for what it is. > the language is a small part of a projects success Perhaps, but it is still a part of a project's success. Many projects written in PHP or Ruby or something other…

> [...]it's pretty much a no-brainer to rewrite C in Rust, or at least to attempt it. Thank you for proving my point. To be clear: there are a lot of legitimate reasons to not rewrite a C projects in Rust, memory safety isn't a universal trump card that supercedes all other considerations in all projects; one has to be zealot to believe that. I suspect the majority of Rust users are rational about when Rust is approp…

> memory safety isn't a universal trump card that supercedes all other considerations in all projects; one has to be zealot to believe that.

Rust is not just C with memory safety!!

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#145

Post by lproven »

penguin_booze wrote: post #83

I'm wondering if anyone's attempting to revitalise the old Minix. Minix started out an educational software, from which, Torvalds admitted, he drew inspiration. Since then, they had higher ambitions. And now, from the last I heard, it has evolved into neither here nor there.

> And now, from the last I heard, it has evolved into neither here nor there.

Minix 3 is a true microkernel Unix-compatible: it can run most of the NetBSD userland, for instance. It is probably the single most widely run Unix-like OS in the desktop/server world, as a copy runs in the hidden management engine inside every Intel CPU made in the last decade and a half or so. Whether the machine runs Windows, Linux, xBSD, macOS, it doesn't matter: deep inside it's running Minix.

But Intel committed nothing back and never even told the OS's creator. He only found out years later:

https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#146

Post by lproven »

hollerith wrote: post #142
lrvick wrote: post #138

See also: Asterinas is a full rust rewrite of a minimal modern linux kernel that can run a full on modern desktop environment.

Interesting. Can it run a mainstream browser?

No, not yet, but it's attracting interest. I wrote about it here:

https://www.theregister.com/software/2025/09/12/three-altern...

Re: Linux 0.11 rewritten in idiomatic Rust, boots in QEMU

#147

Post by uecker »

IshKebab wrote: post #143
uecker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust is not a lot better than C. In many aspect, it is worse. It is better if you focus on a specific point (memory safety) and exaggerate its importance beyond all other considerations and ignoring all other options to make progress in this area. This is the zealotry part. For my personal IT security, people pushing Rust made things worse not better as I do not get security updates for parts of my OS (Debian) anymor…

> Rust is not a lot better than C. Yes it is. > In many aspect, it is worse. "Many"? Compilation time sure. That's about it. Anyway things don't have to be pareto better to be better. A car is better than a horse, even though it can't travel over rough terrain as easily. > It is better if you focus on a specific point (memory safety) and exaggerate its importance beyond all other considerations and ignoring all other…

The aspects where I think Rust is worse are: compilation time, high complexity, less stable, only one implementation, no international standard, no proper ABI.

xz was a highly sophisticated attack using social engineering and hiding malware in build artifacts, and it was found just in time. It has nothing to do with languages (it was not obfuscated C or something), but highlights that one has to carefully protect the supply chain. There were several compromised packages in cargo already, Rustup teaches people to do curl | sh.

Post reply on HN