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

71–80 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#71

Post by PragmaticPulp »

marricks wrote: post #49
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…

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get th…

> he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too.

Unfortunately, it seems we're getting the worst of both worlds: The dirty laundry is being aired in this thread, but the actual details are being withheld.

From the Tweet thread:

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

I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusations.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#72

Post by yannoninator »

secuthro22 wrote: post #41
yannoninator wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what this is about. I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets and now you're trying to gaslight the situation. We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust. Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.

>You know what this is about. No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything. >I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is). If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.

So you've admitted you haven't read what I said and the tweets and you've just rushed into the comments section?

  > I don't understand why Google, Microsoft and AWS et. al are on a board of this new foundation.

  > It is the structure that I am concerned about. Again, I'd rather have them just sponsor Rust, why wasn't a gold or platinum sponsorship like structure considered without placing them on the board of directors.

  > We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
Are you saying I didn't state these concerns?

And even steve is concerned about the structure himself, if you have bothered to read the tweets.

Maybe you should actually read my comment and the links before replying.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#73

Post by akagusu »

Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away.

Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong.

Let's watch the show.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#74

Post by turbinerneiter »

bythckr wrote: post #31
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?

Other problem is being the _sole_ Patreon.

Many people think that the best thing for projects like this is to have as many entities involved as possible. Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others.

For example: neither Mozilla nor Amazon might have Embedded Systems as a core interest, so they will forget about it and might accidently make decisions that ate bad for this use cases. If you also have ARM, Microcontroller vendors and so on on board, they will make sure that this topic isn't overlooked.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#76

Post by geodel »

I mean what Steve says makes sense. Steve is far move involved with Rust.

However independently reading those documents from Amazon I felt "God, Rust seems more corporate language then even Go, Java or Swift."

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#77

Post by kreetx »

freditup wrote: post #61
steveklabnik wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> "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. Yes, it typically is. However making non-falsifiable public accusations that individuals are doing "dirty shit" is not keeping things "private" and is even worse than making a concrete public statement about a concern you may have.

Perhaps it isn't and it's actually good not to go very confrontational right from the start?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#79

Post by steveklabnik »

xiphias2 wrote: post #47
steveklabnik wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Sure, I understand that, but the tweetstorm is very non-specific. The only reason why I share your concern is because you built an amazing personal brand.

I tried to be very specific in my issue with what is public knowledge: Amazon has outsized influence in the project, and is continuing to wield it to gain more. I even cited specific ways in which that is happening.

I was also vague about other things because they're secondary concerns to the main one. If Amazon stops trying to be in total control of Rust, I'll be happy.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#80

Post by steveklabnik »

jimbob45 wrote: post #64
steveklabnik wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notably, I did not say that at all. Also, Amazon has never paid me, and I doubt they ever will.

Do you not greatly benefit from Amazon using the language[0]? Without users/patrons, there would be no core Rust team and what bigger patron is there than Amazon? The whole reason the Rust Foundation exists is because you lost a big player's core Rust team (Mozilla) in the first place. [0] https://www.infoq.com/news/2021/02/rust-foundation-announced...

I do indirectly benefit from it, as do many people. That's why, as I say, I want them involved! That's not "being paid" though.
Post reply on HN