This plus using Fil-C for the BusyBox commands is a nice combination (once Fil-C supports ARM64).
Or... rewrite BusyBox in Rust. (And most certainly such a project already exists.)
Isn't that https://uutils.github.io/?
Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
81–90 of 163 posts
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love the MIT license. If this were further along we could use this as the foundation of our business without having to "give back" device drivers and other things.
This should be the sort of red flag to take note of. There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now and this sort of thinking will lead to never being able to run your own software on your own hardware again. A reversion to the dark ages of computing.
> There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now
Can you provide examples of these? I'm aware of temporary forks for things like Xtensa, but these typically get merged back upstream.
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. The obligation is not to the author of the code, it is to the public. MIT-style licenses are gifts to people and companies who produce code and software, copyleft licenses are gifts to the public. I don't give a shit about the happiness of programmers any more than the happiness of garbage collectors, sorry. I d…
I get what your saying but I think it’s not the best way to describe it - “GPL is property”? Hardly - it’s a societal common good that can be used by anyone interested in helping that common good. Are parks “proprietary”? I can’t run my car dealership from one, so it’s …proprietary? No. So using the terminology of “proprietary” doesn’t do justice to what it actually is.
Public property is different from private property, which is different from personal property.
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#84[flagged]
Just about everything of worth in operating systems (and in software in general) was already invented in those decades.
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#85The choice of MIT for a kernel feels like setting up the project to be cannibalized rather than contributed to. We've seen this movie before with the BSDs. Hardware vendors love permissive licenses because they can fork, add their proprietary HAL/drivers, and ship a closed binary blob without ever upstreaming a single fix. Linux won specifically because the GPL forced the "greedy" actors to collaborate. In the embedd…
That's 1980s-90s thinking. Nobody is making proprietary BSD forks any more and new kernels probably have no chance of reaching production anyway so worrying about proprietary forks is irrelevant.
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#86Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love the MIT license. If this were further along we could use this as the foundation of our business without having to "give back" device drivers and other things.
Do you think soup kitchens and food banks should only serve food to those who volunteer? MIT is a perfectly fine FOSS license.
[deleted]
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations on the progress. If I may ask, I'm curious what considerations have motivated your choice of licence (especially since pushover licences seem extremely popular with all kinds of different Rust projects, as opposed to copyleft).
What is a "pushover" license?
It’s a play on “permissive” license.
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations on the progress. If I may ask, I'm curious what considerations have motivated your choice of licence (especially since pushover licences seem extremely popular with all kinds of different Rust projects, as opposed to copyleft).
What is a "pushover" license?
A derogatory term for copyfree licenses
Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code
#90The choice of MIT for a kernel feels like setting up the project to be cannibalized rather than contributed to. We've seen this movie before with the BSDs. Hardware vendors love permissive licenses because they can fork, add their proprietary HAL/drivers, and ship a closed binary blob without ever upstreaming a single fix. Linux won specifically because the GPL forced the "greedy" actors to collaborate. In the embedd…
That's 1980s-90s thinking. Nobody is making proprietary BSD forks any more and new kernels probably have no chance of reaching production anyway so worrying about proprietary forks is irrelevant.
The most recent and most used fork for freebsd is for the ps4