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

Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#161

Post by peteretep »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #149
peteretep wrote: post #70

Apologies for the off-topic nature of this, but: Something that's been capturing my imagination recently is sshing into a machine, pushing an appropriate shell binary to /tmp, and then executing it. If you have an exotic preference for shell (or vim config, or whatever), we've presumably generally got sufficient bandwidth these days to do a virtually instant user-space install and execution, no?

Arx is intended to allow exactly this instant user-space install and execution: https://github.com/solidsnack/arx

That's a great link, thanks

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#162

Post by elcritch »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #148
elcritch wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing lacking in traditional shell utilities is difficulty having a universally understood way of passing metadata about the content of the pipes/streams. Other commentators have (rightly!) pointed out the difficulties of requiring a single "structured object" in the core of the ecosystem... but if there were a way to gracefully support multiple structured object formats and let tooling build on top of that. Got…

One might not need native support to get started: with a wrapper that recognized the coreutils, for example, one could translate the data appropriately. corehttp ls -l ...

Seems like it'd be worth trying. Been wanting an excuse to try Rist.

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#163

Post by e12e »

eridius wrote: post #123
notheguyouthink wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too familiar with licensing, can someone ELI5? Eg, normally I just choose MIT because licensing is not a concern of mine. I'd like credit, but beyond that, do whatever the hell you want with my work. Now, I'm not making core nix tools, but should I be choosing a different license? Man do I hate licensing.

If you don't care about licensing, MIT, or BSD, is a fantastic choice. Definitely don't choose GPL. The only people who should ever choose GPL are people who do care about licensing and have specifically made the decision that they like what the GPL does. But if you don't care about licensing, then you can't make an informed choice about whether GPL is appropriate, and it's far better to err on the side of using a pe…

I'm a big proponent/believer in copyleft - to the point that I would often recommend gpl v3 or agpl. But I also think you're right - if you don't know/care, permissive is the way to go.

But I would actually recommend cc0. Especially for small, trivial projects - I guess I can see that people want attribution - but I think cc0 can sometimes makes things much easier. This is especially true for projects that are meant to be educational/example code.

It clears up any and all confusions about copy-pasting and so on. The main counterpoint is that mit, apache (Apl) and 2/3-clause bsd are all well-known.

If I had to recommend just one licence it would probably be Apl, due to the patent grant.

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#164

Post by e12e »

LukeShu wrote: post #142
notheguyouthink wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too familiar with licensing, can someone ELI5? Eg, normally I just choose MIT because licensing is not a concern of mine. I'd like credit, but beyond that, do whatever the hell you want with my work. Now, I'm not making core nix tools, but should I be choosing a different license? Man do I hate licensing.

Any recommendation of a "default" license to use if you don't care too much about licensing will always carry strong opinions of whoever is recommending it. So, instead, here's a decision tree of good recommendations based on the two biggest decisions that factor in to choosing a license: start | V if I modify it, and give someone a compiled binary of that, should I also have to give (or offer) them the source? | | y…

It's a good chart, but I'd add: is the source code meant to be an example/educational and/or is trivial[1]: cc0 - somewhere on the top right.

[1] by definition trivial code isn't copyrightable - but "trivial" is subjective. If you, as the author feel it is, might as well clearly signal that and use cc0.

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#165

Post by eridius »

e12e wrote: post #163
eridius wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't care about licensing, MIT, or BSD, is a fantastic choice. Definitely don't choose GPL. The only people who should ever choose GPL are people who do care about licensing and have specifically made the decision that they like what the GPL does. But if you don't care about licensing, then you can't make an informed choice about whether GPL is appropriate, and it's far better to err on the side of using a pe…

I'm a big proponent/believer in copyleft - to the point that I would often recommend gpl v3 or agpl. But I also think you're right - if you don't know/care, permissive is the way to go. But I would actually recommend cc0. Especially for small, trivial projects - I guess I can see that people want attribution - but I think cc0 can sometimes makes things much easier. This is especially true for projects that are meant…

I'm agree that something like cc0 is a good idea for sample code, or code that is otherwise intended to be copy&pasted. I don't think libraries are usually intended to be copy&pasted though, so a license like MIT or BSD is more appropriate.

I'm not familiar with the Apl license.

My personal preference at this point is to dual-license under both The Apache License, Version 2.0 and MIT. The Apache license has a patent grant and it also has the nice property where it doesn't include the name of the copyright holder so you only need one copy of the license even if you're using 20 different Apache-licensed libraries. And the dual license under MIT is just because MIT is a simpler and more well-known license, so this is to avoid scaring off anyone who isn't familiar with the Apache license.

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#166

Post by e12e »

eridius wrote: post #165
e12e wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big proponent/believer in copyleft - to the point that I would often recommend gpl v3 or agpl. But I also think you're right - if you don't know/care, permissive is the way to go. But I would actually recommend cc0. Especially for small, trivial projects - I guess I can see that people want attribution - but I think cc0 can sometimes makes things much easier. This is especially true for projects that are meant…

I'm agree that something like cc0 is a good idea for sample code, or code that is otherwise intended to be copy&pasted. I don't think libraries are usually intended to be copy&pasted though, so a license like MIT or BSD is more appropriate. I'm not familiar with the Apl license. My personal preference at this point is to dual-license under both The Apache License, Version 2.0 and MIT. The Apache license has a patent…

Apl (or rather "APL"): apache public licence :)

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#167

Post by eridius »

e12e wrote: post #166
eridius wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm agree that something like cc0 is a good idea for sample code, or code that is otherwise intended to be copy&pasted. I don't think libraries are usually intended to be copy&pasted though, so a license like MIT or BSD is more appropriate. I'm not familiar with the Apl license. My personal preference at this point is to dual-license under both The Apache License, Version 2.0 and MIT. The Apache license has a patent…

Apl (or rather "APL"): apache public licence :)

AFAIK there is no license called the "apache public license". There is the "Apache License, Version 2.0" and the older "Apache License, Version 1.1". I actually searched DDG for "APL license" and came up with something I'd never seen before called the "Adaptive Public License".

Re: Cicada – Unix shell written in Rust

#168

Post by e12e »

eridius wrote: post #167
e12e wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apl (or rather "APL"): apache public licence :)

AFAIK there is no license called the "apache public license". There is the "Apache License, Version 2.0" and the older "Apache License, Version 1.1". I actually searched DDG for "APL license" and came up with something I'd never seen before called the "Adaptive Public License".

Might be an outdated acronym:

https://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php (Uses APL)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License (Uses AL)

[Ed: Or indeed, just an old misspelling/error that I've repeated here. Anyway - I meant the Apache License v2]

Post reply on HN