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

What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

smallcultfollowing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 312 posts

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#211

Post by bayindirh »

tcfhgj wrote: post #210
bayindirh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In their zeal to convert, they are happily replacing pro-user software with pro-business software. This is one of the two main reasons I'm not using Rust. Second reason is being addressed by gccrs team, so I have no big gripes there, since they are progressing well.

I think this makes you implicitly are a part of this trend, because even less pro user software exists in Rust because of your decision

Seriously, that's a good point. I'll seriously consider my position when gccrs becomes a bit more mature.

Thanks for your reply.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#212

Post by kibwen »

bayindirh wrote: post #193
lelanthran wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: That's not important. What I want to see is the Rewrite-it-in-Rust movement move towards GPL. GPL is pro-user. MIT is pro-business. In their zeal to convert, they are happily replacing pro-user software with pro-business software. Their primary goal is to convert, not to safeguard. If they shifted their goal from spreading Rust to protecting users, I'd be a lot happier abo…

> In their zeal to convert, they are happily replacing pro-user software with pro-business software. This is one of the two main reasons I'm not using Rust. Second reason is being addressed by gccrs team, so I have no big gripes there, since they are progressing well.

By this same metric, do you refuse to use C because the vast majority of OSS C codebases are permissively licensed? Surely you see that this makes no sense, yes? Neither Rust-the-language nor Rust-the-ecosystem are any more hostile to GPL than any other language and ecosystem.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#213

Post by bigfishrunning »

einr wrote: post #201
bigfishrunning wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but util-linux and the BSDs won't suddenly cease to exist. If you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, just don't use it. Upstream debian has been much more stable for as long as Ubuntu has existed...

Sure, but util-linux and the BSDs won't suddenly cease to exist. If you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, just don't use it. And then websites and applications stop working if you're not using a verified, attested, locked-down OS and you're stuck with your nice free software system that will not do your online banking, let you chat with your friends, or access your company resources.

At that point I'll just move into the woods with a typewriter and chat with my friends via HAM radio

Edit: Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen? if the powers-that-be want to shut you out of the internet, they can do it now; lots of proprietary software already exists.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#214

Post by lelanthran »

kibwen wrote: post #212
bayindirh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In their zeal to convert, they are happily replacing pro-user software with pro-business software. This is one of the two main reasons I'm not using Rust. Second reason is being addressed by gccrs team, so I have no big gripes there, since they are progressing well.

By this same metric, do you refuse to use C because the vast majority of OSS C codebases are permissively licensed? Surely you see that this makes no sense, yes? Neither Rust-the-language nor Rust-the-ecosystem are any more hostile to GPL than any other language and ecosystem.

> By this same metric, do you refuse to use C because the vast majority of OSS C codebases are permissively licensed?

It's not comparable - the Rewrite-it-in-Rust community is aiming to replace the existing pro-user products, with new pro-business products.

The last significant online C community was the one that gave us the pro-user products in the first place.

> Surely you see that this makes no sense, yes? Neither Rust-the-language nor Rust-the-ecosystem are any more hostile to GPL than any other language and ecosystem.

I don't care whether or not they are hostile, that is not relevant. What is relevant to the complaints you are reading is that their primary goal is the spread of Rust, not the interests of the users.

It is totally reasonable to be against a community who are working very hard to replace pro-user software with pro-business software.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#215

Post by bayindirh »

kibwen wrote: post #212
bayindirh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In their zeal to convert, they are happily replacing pro-user software with pro-business software. This is one of the two main reasons I'm not using Rust. Second reason is being addressed by gccrs team, so I have no big gripes there, since they are progressing well.

By this same metric, do you refuse to use C because the vast majority of OSS C codebases are permissively licensed? Surely you see that this makes no sense, yes? Neither Rust-the-language nor Rust-the-ecosystem are any more hostile to GPL than any other language and ecosystem.

> Neither Rust-the-language nor Rust-the-ecosystem are any more hostile to GPL than any other language and ecosystem.

Acta, non verba.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#216

Post by einr »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #213
einr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but util-linux and the BSDs won't suddenly cease to exist. If you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, just don't use it. And then websites and applications stop working if you're not using a verified, attested, locked-down OS and you're stuck with your nice free software system that will not do your online banking, let you chat with your friends, or access your company resources.

At that point I'll just move into the woods with a typewriter and chat with my friends via HAM radio Edit: Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen? if the powers-that-be want to shut you out of the internet, they can do it now; lots of proprietary software already exists.

Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen?

It won't, in itself, but it appears to be yet another little push forward on the slippery slope that probably will end where it appears to inevitably end.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#217

Post by bigfishrunning »

einr wrote: post #216
bigfishrunning wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point I'll just move into the woods with a typewriter and chat with my friends via HAM radio Edit: Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen? if the powers-that-be want to shut you out of the internet, they can do it now; lots of proprietary software already exists.

Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen? It won't, in itself, but it appears to be yet another little push forward on the slippery slope that probably will end where it appears to inevitably end.

but again, the bsd userspace already has a permissive license. if the mustache twirling villains want to lock down stuff, they can do it now. they don't need any push forward.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#218

Post by superkuh »

bayindirh wrote: post #209
bigfishrunning wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but util-linux and the BSDs won't suddenly cease to exist. If you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, just don't use it. Upstream debian has been much more stable for as long as Ubuntu has existed...

I don't use Ubuntu anywhere, so there's no actions I need to take. > Upstream debian has been much more stable for as long as Ubuntu has existed... Well, I use Debian before Ubuntu has existed, and it was never unstable to begin with. I understand the value of more eyes looking into something and its advantages, but let's say, Ubuntu has acted with selfish reasons towards Debian in some cases. I personally taken side…

Meandwhile the Canonical employee who's responsible for some aspects of apt has decided to insert rust code. Because of this, and just this, Debian dropped 4 entire architectures. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/10/msg00285.html

>I plan to introduce hard Rust dependencies and Rust code into APT, no earlier than May 2026. This extends at first to the Rust compiler and standard library, and the Sequoia ecosystem. ... If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain, please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or sunset the port. It's important for the project as whole to be able to move forward and rely on modern tools and technologies and not be held back by trying to shoehorn modern software on retro computing devices.

If you think Canonical isn't going to lead Debian around by the nose on this you haven't been paying attention.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#219

Post by einr »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #217
einr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, why would some userspace components in a slightly-less-free license cause this to happen? It won't, in itself, but it appears to be yet another little push forward on the slippery slope that probably will end where it appears to inevitably end.

but again, the bsd userspace already has a permissive license. if the mustache twirling villains want to lock down stuff, they can do it now. they don't need any push forward.

Yeah, but people don't really want to use the BSD userspace. A lot of the Linux stuff people want to build on assumes a GNU userland and it's not trivial to build a BSD/Linux that actually does relevant computer stuff.

But in places where that stuff isn't relevant, we already see a lot of locked-down devices like the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation based on BSD precisely because they can leverage free software but still lock it down. macOS with its BSD userland is also kind of like this -- the OS is getting gradually more locked down over time, but the frog boils slowly.

If you tighten the screws too hard and fast then people will scream and yell and maybe leave your business for a competitor -- even though it's technically feasible, that means you can't disallow access to banking websites for generic-browser-on-generic-OS now. But we are, brick by brick, building a foundation where that will seem inevitable.

The argument is basically that making it easier to lock down general purpose computing devices like desktop computers (by, for example, making a non-GPL drop-in replacement for GNU *utils) will eventually aid in making it happen. The powers that be will use tried-and-true arguments about security and think-of-the-kids etc to make it seem like running a mutable, untrusted OS is an unacceptable risk.

Re: What it means that Ubuntu is using Rust

#220

Post by tmtvl »

DeathArrow wrote: post #170
bayindirh wrote: post #154

Also, Ubuntu using a non-GPL licensed userland means they can pull all kinds of tricks to allow more TiVoization in the Linux ecosystem. Combine this with what Amutable (systemd guys) are building, and you can have monolithic, closed source, non-user-modifiable Linux distributions or flavors. Ubuntu and companies which embed Linux into their products will love this from a business perspective. Consider: An end to end…

If that means that the massive fragmentation stops and we will have an OS 95% percent of linux users install, It might not be that bad.

Eroding user's rights is good if it means users have fewer choices because choice is bad? I suppose it would mean that resources could concentrate in a smaller, more focused set of software, but I really can't see how that would justify the harm caused.
Post reply on HN