Bugs Rust won't catch • Hacker News Board

Re: Bugs Rust won't catch

#391

Post by noosphr » Sat, May 02, 2026, 11:35 AM UTC

PunchyHamster wrote: post #172

oefrha wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. If you fucking found 44 CVEs with some relatively amateurish ones (I'm no security engineer but even I've done that exact TOCTOU mitigation before) in such a core component of your system a month before 26.04 LTS release (or a couple months if you count from their round 1), surely the response should be "we need to delay this to 28.04 LTS to give it time to mature", not "we'l…

Ubuntu has been doing careless shit like that their entire existence, it's nothing new

What do you mean that the people who use Debian Unstable as the basis of their OS would break things?

Re: Bugs Rust won't catch

#392

Post by dapperdrake » Mon, May 04, 2026, 5:44 AM UTC

uecker wrote: post #389

dapperdrake wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also, this is what makes NFS useless. Latency is at least two orders of magnitude higher. That is the (relevant) difference here. And treating it like a loc system with all the incidental non-optimizations made the NAS use-case take 40 hours for colored "ls" output.

I find it extremely useful and it works well for many use cases. This already implies that "it is useless" is pure nonsense. If it does not work for your usecase, just don't use it.

The basic argument was "NFS is stupid". The basis for this claim is its data model being ill-suited to network latency. This is different from "useless".

Re: Bugs Rust won't catch

#393

Post by dapperdrake » Mon, May 04, 2026, 5:44 AM UTC

ragall wrote: post #390

dapperdrake wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which all boil down to "replace NFS with something that has a better data model."

Any remote data system would have the same problems. Looping over a list and synchronously fetching files one by one is equally foolish for S3 too.

That is the point.

Re: Bugs Rust won't catch

#394

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 08, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #273

goodpoint wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply false. You can accept GPL contributions and clearly indicate the names of the contributors as required by MIT. There is no "incompatible fork".

No, GPL and MIT have significantly different compliance requirements. You cannot suddenly begin shipping code with stricter compliance requirements to downstream users without potentially exposing them to legal liability.

[deleted]

Re: Bugs Rust won't catch

#395

Post by pastage » Tue, May 12, 2026, 8:15 AM UTC

VorpalWay wrote: post #370

pastage wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NetApp has NFS support and is widely used.

First thing I have heard about NetApp. Seems to be some enterprise focused company, with more than one product. Not sure which product of theirs you refer to. Synology, TrueNAS and Proxmox probably also have NFS support I would assume, and they definitely have Samba. Those are more relevant to me personally. I just run a normal headless Linux distro on my NAS computer, I don't see the point of a specialised NAS distr…

> it is easier and works better

For me NFS is easy and works better, edit two files, enable NFS and update firewall. I had NFS running before SMB, and if I am at hobby level I prefer http if it is good enough. There are technical reasons to use SMB, HTTP, NFS or Ceph. The easy to use options is just a function of how much you know, what you have run into and what you NEED to do.