The rust linux tools for Ubuntu are such a damn failure. They even have different output or do not even cover the full functionality of the real gnu tools. The project is already bonkers, but a bad execution.. At least do that right.

The hate against uutils is retarded

But ubuntu replacing battle tested gnu utils with alpha uutils is also really retarded

@12bitfloat ofcourse it is.

> 'The hate against uutils is retarded'.

Hate is a strong word. Distrust && reasons against them are sound, though.

@D-4got10-01 I don't agree with canonical's choice either. But if you read some of the comment sections on different news sites, hoo boy, are there some mentally retarded rust haters lol

It's not surprising many devs are wary of rust when the toxic brigade pushing to have everything rewritten in it are the same toxic people that have been trying to shove their CoCs into every corner of OSS for the past half decade or more.

Doesn't matter how good or bad rust the language actually is, rust the community is composed of the last people any sane dev would want involved in their project.

I'm torn on rust-for-linux.

For one, I'm not a Rust dev, so my opinion is largely null anyways.

I am a c/c++ hobbyist, though, and updating the tool chain isn't that bad of an idea from this perspective.

I think the Rusty conversion will be good, but it will take time. A bunch of lifeless hacks will half-implement buggy versions just because they're Rustacean fanboys and want Rust in Linux. We're probably in that stage now.

Then, once things get noticeably bad, genuinely good devs will step in and either replace or fix the shit-tier code hastily written by the hardcore Rustaceans.

I don't really give a shit about the memory safety of Rust. You can write memory safe c code, and c code that is the age of the Linux kernel (plus, the extra set of eyes helps, being the largest collaborative software project on the globe) typically is memory safe anyways.

It's mostly just that c *will eventually* fall out of style. It's already largely out of style. Business applications simply are not written in c anymore. While most devs can make their way around in a c codebase, there are vanishingly less c professionals that work with it daily. That's a bad thing.

But a newer tool, like Rust, that genuinely finds its way into non-niche business applications regularly, has a professional pool to pull from. People that use it at work, then come home and work on open source projects for fun or whatever.

In the next few years I'm honestly expecting a fork of Linux to be completely re-written in Rust, without Linus.

@AlgoRythm how can you expect that. The drivers are the biggest issue in rewriting an OS. Those aren't there. Also, there is already a Rust OS. But of course, like always, you can only run it in some VM and it's worthless.

Regarding rewriting the linux tools: nobody works on them, they were just doing their thing, they're just fine. No reason to rewrite in any way. The output of those applications are used in many applications and such, you won't even want to risk a different output. But there, those people risk it all. It's just unprofessional idea.

@AlgoRythm You really underestimate how autistic and knowledgable the Rust user base is. I have no idea where the idea come from that all Rust users are dumb script kiddies because it's actually quite the opposite, there are so many incredibly smart people (and it makes sense, because just like OCaml or Haskell, Rust is complex enough that anybody doing anything serious *has* to know what their doing :P Script kiddies can't)

The real issue with adding Rust is just the fact that you're doing new development, and especially if you replace something, you'll inevitably add bugs that need to be ironed out over time

Linux isn't being rewritten in Rust btw. It's for new subsystems or subsystems which badly need fixing anyways. And for anything security related I see it as a win

@12bitfloat @retoor ya, my opinion is definitely an outsider's one, that's why I said it was null from the start. I don't know much about Linux or Rust so I'm just guessing. I've seen some of the drama between Linus and the Rust for Linux community and that's basically all I'm working off, besides the two days I spent with Rust before getting bored and moving to Zig instead (fun!)

@AlgoRythm you need to have quite some brain capacity to write rust without the compiler complaining. However what they write might be convoluted and overcomplicated.
I generally don't like the push is rust everywhere. The reason is that it's a novelty reason instead of actual benefits.

It's a tool, a bit of a cumbersome tool at that. So the specific benefits better be worth it to do the specific job.
Most people I've seen choosing rust, do premature (performance) optimisation.

Also, literally every Rust user ends up with a boyfriend.

@12bitfloat > 'But if you read some of the comment sections on different news sites, hoo boy, are there some mentally retarded rust haters lol'.

Yeah, while I'm against the move, seeing more problems that can arise from it than anything good coming out of it, I'm sure you're right. There definitely are those people out there.

@retoor > 'No reason to rewrite in any way.'.

This is the reason: https://devrant.molodetz.nl/preview... .

/* CommitStrip down due to expired cert... had to upload my local copy... . */