I refuse to let Amazon define Rust • Hacker News Board

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#31

Post by bythckr » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #2

>> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla. >> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects. >> Why are we regressing here? Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS. Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue…

What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well.

Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#32

Post by ctvo » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

99_00 wrote: post #28

HugoDaniel wrote: post #15

Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages. Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust. Other languages have been through worse and survive…

I don't see where you and the tweet disagree. Is this your position? "Amazon must or should define Rust".

No one disagrees with that, I'd think? But where is the evidence that it's occurring as hinted in the thread?

"I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#33

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

In terms of how to run a tech foundation, no (former) employee of Mozilla has any standing to talk. Mozilla has watched Firefox market share evaporate, laid off core tech teams, all the while increasing the pay of their leadership.

I am completely willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, and let them be involved in the Rust foundation as they see fit.

The great thing about open source, is that the code is open source. If enough developers don't like the way stuff is being handled, they are free to fork.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#34

Post by xiphias2 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.''

,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.''

Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#35

Post by dralley » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

ctvo wrote: post #19

Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting? > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. How? OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.

> wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles.

Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#36

Post by benatkin » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

Seems to be related to this post: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#37

Post by mjw1007 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

The announcement blog post at https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru... says the initial version was "quite closely modeled on AWS tenets".

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#38

Post by steveklabnik » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #34

,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.'' ,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.'' Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.

"making deals" is the wrong characterization. "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#39

Post by 99_00 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

ctvo wrote: post #32

99_00 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where you and the tweet disagree. Is this your position? "Amazon must or should define Rust".

No one disagrees with that, I'd think? But where is the evidence that it's occurring as hinted in the thread? "I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.

I think that having a few prickly characters who have an extreme mistrust of large corporations is health and useful for a community that wants to keep its autonomy.

"Oh, representative of mega-corp, we can't do that . I agree it's a great idea and I would love to do it, but the zealots would revolt."

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#40

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

dyingkneepad wrote: post #10

wodenokoto wrote: post #4

Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust? As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.

Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc. There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may…

But... doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? It seems like now you are saying that employees of large corporations also should not have serious roles in such Foundations.