A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
Rust haters are just a hilarious species. It's like they are paid Russian trolls blowing everything out of proportion, making nonsensical arguments, and always whining about one thing or another.
I can't tell if these are real people or just bot and sock puppet accounts operated by suckless.
Rust is fine, but rewriting GPL software under a weaker license is not.
What I don't like with Rust coreutils is the MIT license instead of GPL.
Yeah, the usual argument for not picking GPL with Rust is based on how it applies to static linking, which is how Rust works by default. But the coreutils are executables, not libraries.
Even for the libraries I think it'd be nice with some stronger guarantees. Allegedly the EUPL is copyleft but allows static linking, so probably something to look into.
Ah well. At least it's also possible for orgs like GNU to re-release forks of MIT stuff as GPL. The MIT licensing doesn't only work for the proprietary-preferring orgs.
Are you a (potential) contributor?
I don’t think it matters.
They are certainly a member of the community.
Choosing MIT over GPL is a political decision that empowers corporations at the expense of the community.
Yah companies can (and sometimes do) choose to give back to the community with MIT projects.
GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL 2.0 ensure that they do give back when they take.
I just don’t trust companies enough to use MIT.
I think the compatibility concerns are legit at least in principle. That said, if you look at the issues, 8 of the test failures are exotic edge cases in ‘tail’. I for one am not hitting these utilities hard enough to run into that kind of thing. These utilities are already good enough for most of us.
I am a fan of the benefits of Rust. The fact that RedoxOS and Ubuntu are shipping the same Coreutils as we exit 2025 is amazing.