this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
376 points (98.2% liked)

Open Source

32765 readers
154 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (18 children)

I'm relatively new to Linux and the FOSS scene, but I'm not sure how I feel about the unquestioning devotion to a single person. It seems antithetical to the entire philosophy.

Even if he was maybe right this time...

The dude did a complete 180 as soon as they heard from Linus, like daddy made his decision, and it's final, or some shit...

Edit: To be clear, I understand why developers respect and listen to Linus... I just think there are fundamental issues with this kind of top-down management of such a colossal project, and the desire to defer to one person seems antithetical to the FOSS philosophy.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago

It’s just respect

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Its not antithetical to the Foss philosophy. Thus happens because Linus is a trusted figure, something he's absolutely earned. He didn't just buy control of some product, or get promoted to this position by a company. Many great open source projects have a BDFL. If people lose their trust in the projects BDFL, they fork the project.

Also, the kernel is really just one part of Linux. Distros include a whole bunch of software they choose to deliver a full OS (hence the Gnu+Linux people). Linus doesn't have control over the OS as a whole, just the kernel.

Edit: Just finished reading the chain, what do you mean the dude did a 180? He expressed frustration that Linux only criticized him, further criticized the issues with the kernel development process, and said he was giving up being part of the kernel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Idk what bdfl stands for, but the first thought was big daddy fuck lord

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Benevolent dictator for life.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Benevolent dictator for life, but honestly your interpretation gets the same message across.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The quote he replied to:

If shaming on social media does not work, then tell me what does, because I'm out of ideas.

Yeah, lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

Honestly I kinda wish the Rust devs would rather go and support a project like Redox OS and then maybe we can have less drama about all this.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Rust is the future for this sort of systems programming work, and by failing to see that and accommodate its use both Linus and Hellwig are sabotaging the long term viability of the kernel imo. New devs are keen to jump on rust because of how much it does better than C/++ and how much easier it is to make safe and secure systems with it, but shit like this just demotivates that crowd and thins the pool of people who are willing to contribute going forward. We need memory safety by default, the task of kernel stability is only going to get more complex and unsustainable without it. Stop holding onto tradition and purity for the sake of it

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Rust is not the only systems language with “memory safety”. Some even have better type systems (linear types, refinement types, GADTs) & tools for proving code correct. What grinds my gears is this “C is has problems, therefore you must use Rust” flawed mentality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Rust has affine types and gets close to linear when you include #[must_use] (you can still let _ = foo but at least it won't be an accident, also, drop code isn't guaranteed to run and there's good reasons for that), refinement types there's a library for that. GADTs... I mean sure trait magic can get annoying and coming from Haskell you'd want to do more in the type system but in the end the idiomatic rust way to do many of those things is with macros. Which, unlike Haskell, Rust actually is really good at. Really good. Tack refinement types onto the language kind of good.

Proving tools, honestly, there's only one piece of actually proven software (SeL4) and the only language it's really written in is Coq. Which Rust will never, ever, compete with on its home turf.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I agree but in terms of the features, momentum, and community around rust I think it’s the most promising option for memory safe language. But you’re right that it’s not the only option, I should say that they should be more welcoming to mixed language development with memory safe languages in general

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›