teri

You may actually miss out when using an IDE. Driving without training wheels is more fun :)

I've used IDEs (Netbeans, Intellij) in the beginning but then started migrating away. They where just too heavy for me. Also, often IDEs do lots of stuff in the background such that you easily don't understand fully what is going on. Now I settled using the 'helix' text editor. It provides some IDE-like features like integration with language-servers, syntax highlighting, code completion, file navigation, code navigation, symbol search. But there are no dozens of buttons for triggering compilation etc. You do all this on a separate terminal.

Quite handy for such setups are tiling window-managers like i3. They allow you to easily fit the editor and terminals on the screen. This way you also don't need the build-in terminal of an IDE.

Often, the contributor license agreement says that you - the contributor - transfer the copyright of your contribution to the project/company.

This is used to get the community contributing to the project while making sure that the project can be turned into a proprietary project at anytime.

The copyright holder can decide about the license. As long as only one entity holds the copyright, this entity is free to change the license. This even works if the project is licensed under a copyleft license like the GNU Public License (GPL). Such projects might look like "open-source". Fine, the source is open at the moment. But it might not be open anymore tomorrow.

Privat kommt für mich Windows nicht in Frage. Windows 11 läuft ja angeblich gar nicht mehr auf älteren Geräten die aber mit Linux noch ganz flott sind. Im Geschäftsumfeld geht's manchmal kaum anders weil alle ihre Seele an Microsoft verkauft haben.

Zudem finde ich das Telemetrieverhalten von Windows einfach nicht akzeptabel. Zudem hat Windows echt nervige Eigenschaften: z.B. Wenn in der Windows Firewall gewisse Spyware Apps von Microsoft geblockt werden. Nach einem oder zwei Systemupdates haben jene Programme wieder Internetzugriff :/

Would like to see this succeed but have zero insights. To you think there's actual momentum behind the fork?

Helix is neat but not a full IDE. After a while I'm much more efficient and basically don't use the mouse anymore. https://helix-editor.com/

Cool! I just don't get yet how I can subscribe to federated channels. Sometimes I find them in the search, sometimes not. This one does not show up. I tried searching for !rustlang@lemmyrs.org - no result. Any ideas?

Well, I think it does contribute to the discussion here :) . Even though the problems behind the original post might be different.

That's also somewhat my dilemma. I really like Rust as a language and I'd be happy to use it also for my day-job. Unfortunately, I don't see it adopted in the companies I work for.

True. As an outsider I can only speculate what is going on there. As you say, other BigTech-financed projects seem fine.

About big tech companies sponsoring projects: The have an interest that Rust is maintained and many people write good crates which they can use. But they don't care so much about the world being able to profit from the ecosystem. If they do, then just because this is actually profitable for themselves.

I think this turns into a problem once a project get mainstream. Let's imagine that in twenty years Rust largely replaced C/C++. It would become part of the worlds critical infrastructure. I don't think it is good to let the monopolies have the governance. I don't believe that they act in interest of people. Often it may appear the way. But if it does, I'm convinced that there's usually a business interest behind. For example, screwing people completely would be bad for business or might trigger the attention of regulation bodies. So they don't do it. Screwing people very gently such that they get used to it before they notice might happen. Slowly boiling the frog. This type of companies do that on a daily basis.

I have not much of a clue about the recent dramas. Maybe it is not related. Yet I hope that at least now people take the opportunity to rethink sponsorship.

To me personally, this kind of sponsorship tastes bitter. On one hand, it does show that some companies are willing to invest in the project. The money is certainly welcome and it might be difficult to find other reliable sponsors. The big ones definitely have the financial means to create impact and sustain the project. But that does not mean that their interests are aligned with Rust users like me. From this kind of companies I'd expect that they sponsor projects in order to have influence. They want to breed an ecosystem which is good for their business. Unfortunately, their business is bad for my privacy, its bad for me as taxpayer (Google is a tax parasite where I live), its bad for fair competition. Everything they do, they do for profit. Even if it looks harmless it will be for profit or image.

Hence, there are things that I'd not expect to change with such companies as sponsors. For example: the Rust ecosystem is quite well linked to Github. I don't believe that Microsoft would invest into changing that. The opposite.

To me feels bad if something like Rust which is about to become part of our daily infrastructure is under the control of a few monopolistic companies. If Rust gets mainstream, then those companies do not represent the people who depend on Rust.

Alone the sponsors of the Rust Foundation I find very questionable (Amazon, Google, Huawei, Meta, Microsoft, https://foundation.rust-lang.org/ on the bottom). Unfortunately, corporatism is what you get from corporations. Happy to hear about the crab-lang fork.

Open-source chips is probably the difficult part about it. There's RISCV CPUs with open-source high-level description - but the physical devices are not open-source (for example the physical layout). There's some people running soft-CPUs on FPGAs. This way the circuit of the CPU is open-source but the FPGA fabric is not. I believe (and/or hope) that the situation might improve in the next decades. There's some chip fabs which start to allow creating fully open-source chips (Skywater in the US, IHP in EU). Yes, most chip fabs are actually forbidding to create open-source chips.

This might be inspiring: https://mntre.com/