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

201–210 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#201

Post by ethbr0 »

fsckboy wrote: post #150
alexchamberlain wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that this has been an informal rule for over 20 years, the organisations in question are Postgres specific specialists and the developers in question have long histories with the project. I don't think it's quite the same to be honest.

the situation is not the same, but the familiar corporate pressures expected to emerge and the reasons for the rule are the same: it bears scrutiny and oversight. If an erosion of trust in a group like this is not something to worry about, what is?

The worry is that "If my livelihood, and that of those whom I work with every day, were in jeopardy, I would be tempted to use my authority for the good of my company over the good of the broader user base."

Which... I find it hard to imagine a random selection of individuals, the majority of which wouldn't be susceptible to that. Everyone has to eat, and there are always catastrophes in business eventually.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#203

Post by zozbot234 »

kettlecorn wrote: post #187
poppejans wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ashley has been really great for the Rust community, isn't currently employed by a massive corporation, and has some really solid views & principles on how to empower open source work. (See some of her talks) Empowering open source work on Rust is exactly what the Rust foundation is supposed to do, which is why I'd really have preferred a Rust foundation with Ashley as ED.

An unfortunate blemish on her record is her handling of `wasm-pack`. She worked to ensure it become a critical part of the Rust/Wasm ecosystem and then silently stopped maintaining it. For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights. Even though `wasm-pack` became unusable for many users it was still described as necessary in the…

> For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights.

There is an easy and appropriate response to this - just fork() the project under a new name. There's nothing wrong with this, especially when the maintainer doesn't respond to community inquiries. People in the open source community are generally volunteers, so we shouldn't expect or require them to "speak up" if it can be avoided.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#204

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#205

Post by detaro »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #204

I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?

Holding (what is perceived to be) too much control over core roles of the project.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#207

Post by Kbelicius »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #186
cratermoon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? Guess which FAANG company has de facto control of the foundation now? I'll give you two hints: it starts with A and isn't Apple.

Alphabet? The correct answer is we don't know since people are being coy with details......

Amazon is named in the first tweet when you click on the link. Nobody is being coy.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#208

Post by garaetjjte »

steveklabnik wrote: post #140
jhugo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on what is so important about the chair of the foundation? From what I understand, it's not really stewardship of the language so much as stewardship of a bunch of administrative minutiae.

Administrative minutiae is important. The foundation controls our IP and a large pot of money. How that is used matters. I am not taking any beef with specific moves here, just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot , more than most people probably realize.

>just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot, more than most people probably realize.

>Again, specifically: what control are you worried about? I suspect that you think the foundation has powers it does not have. [0]

These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. Did something changed in the last few months?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126077

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#209

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cratermoon wrote: post #135
sleepybrett wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprisingly there are a lot of ex-softies at amazon.

And apparently at least 5 of them visit HN

Given how many of the personal attacks on Steve are saying almost the same thing, I don't know that it's "at least five". It might be just one person with multiple accounts. If it's more than one, they're all following the same idea of what message they should be using to smear Steve...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#210

Post by AndyKelley »

steveklabnik wrote: post #151
keewee7 wrote: post #141

>I want big companies to be involved in Rust Why? Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg. I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.

I don't think it's possible to build a production grade programming language today without large amounts of capital. Unfortunately, companies are the only way to gain access to that amount of money. I elaborated a bit on that over here: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976

Challenge accepted >:-)
Post reply on HN