271–280 of 312 posts
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...
> If you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, just don't use it. They said this for systemd too but look LFS dropped non-systemd support
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's not always true. Look at how the proposal for making netplan the default network manager in Debian went. Not good, from Canonical's perspective. Making /tmp behave the way systemd guys want also went not according to plan. The behavior is modified somewhat because of the discussion. Rust's influence doesn't come from Canonical per se, but from its promise to eradicate memory related bugs. The initial hype…
The fact that Canonical has always been happy to ship software that they know fully well shouldn't be shipped doesn't fill me with hope that it will even work decently without causing massive issues to everyone (remember when they started to use pulseaudio? In the end it was such a mess that the solution was to abandon it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People give away their freedoms all the time. Most people are walking around with facebook and tiktok tracking their every move. they don't care. Some linux users aren't going to stop this sort of thing from happening. If Chase Bank wants to only allow MacOS and Windows 11 computers to access their website, the 1% of their userbase that uses something else isn't going to move the needle, and 99% of their users won't…
People give away their freedoms all the time. Most people are walking around with facebook and tiktok tracking their every move. they don't care. This is absolutely true. I'm saying someone should care, because it does matter. Some linux users aren't going to stop this sort of thing from happening. If Chase Bank wants to only allow MacOS and Windows 11 computers to access their website, the 1% of their userbase that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ecosy…
further down that thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/10/msg00288.html ``` Rust is already a hard requirement on all Debian release architectures and ports except for alpha, hppa, m68k, and sh4 (which do not provide sqv). ``` It seems to me that the APT change was just a nail in the coffin of these older architectures, which would have eventually been sunset anyway, due to sqv not being available. If yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You think AI writes better Rust than Python? Can you give me some examples? I strictly code Django, and Claude Code is really good at following my lead with it.
The compile errors are great. I can change one function signature and have my output fill up with compile errors (that would all be runtime errors in python). Then I just let claude cook on fixing them. Any time you have to run your program and tell claude what’s wrong with it you’re wasting time, but because claude can run the compiler itself and iterate it’s much more able to complete a task without intervention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evil deeds are you worried about in particular? What are you afraid people will do now that coreutils is MIT?
Does it even need to be explicitly stated? Closed linux userlands.
The gpl is generally considered to stop at the process boundary. I don’t really understand what you could do with a bsd licensed coreutils you couldn’t do with a gpled coreutils. You could make closed source Linux software which called coreutils in a child process. But by most readings of the gpl, you can do that today.
I suppose a company could fork coreutils and make it closed source, keeping their special extra command line options for themselves. But … I guess I just don’t see the value in that. You can already do that with FreeBSD. Apple does exactly that today. And the sky hasn’t fallen. If anything, it would be a relief to many if Apple’s coreutils equivalents were more compatible with gnu coreutils, because then scripts would be more freely portable between Linux and macOS.
Here's the chasm I want to see Rust cross: Dynamic linking with a safe ABI, where if you change and recompile one library then the outcome has to obey some definition of safety, and ABI stability is about as good as C or Objective-C or Swift. Until that happens, it'll be hard to adopt Rust in a lot of C/C++ strongholds where C's ABI and dynamic linking are the thing that enables the software to get huge.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used to be GNU/Linux for a reason, Android/Linux is surely not GPL userland and there are others as such. There is also a reason why all the GNU/Linux competition on embedded space, including Linux Foundation's own Zephyr, aren't GPL licensed. People seem to forget Linux is only a kernel.
> People seem to forget Linux is only a kernel. I certainly don't and that's why I'm advocating the userspace shall stay GPL. The freedom has two pillars. Kernel and userspace. If you mow one of the two down, you lose everything.
They weren't? Isn't it obvious that it's not easy because the challenge isn't literally adding dependencies to a file, but before that - finding/evaluating which of the alternative dependencies to add?
But anyway, that's a very shallow and wrong summary of what happened, the link itself has plenty of grounded non-hateful objections to the proposal, which would be as valid now as they were then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They used outdated linux (Debian-family) because its lower cost to maintain. Ubuntu forks Sid, and evolves from there. They don't downstream Debian Stable. > All around, never use debian-family outside servers. Fedora is the future. Maybe OpenSUSE too. (Note these are not Arch or related to Arch) Daily driving Debian stable on servers and Testing on desktops for more than two decades. Testing is a rolling distribut…
other than systems, that is