this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
89 points (90.1% liked)

Linux

66264 readers
774 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What an absolute shitshow

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pixeldaemon@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Rust-rewriting is a kind of madness. I like Rust, it's an amazing language. But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won't make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.

The MIT license also is a concern. I understand that many projects use it, and we can't just reject them because of the license. But here we don't see an innovation under MIT license - we see a copy of existing GNU tools, with hilarious issues and a corporation-friendly license.

The fact uutils are being shipped despite being so raw shows that this is not about better software. The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.

And the quality level of uutils being already shipped tells they either make free alpha testers for the corpos of the users, or there were no competent programmers to take part in the development.

C will remain the core of the modern digital world for many years. It is impossible to rewrite everything to Rust in a couple of years. It needs a careful professional approach if we really want this to make software better. But in this case, no one does.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won’t make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.

Of course rewriting them will introduce some new issues, but it will also eliminate classes of bugs from which there are definitely still a great many in old "stable" C code (bugs which are now being discovered and will presumably continue to be discovered at a much faster pace due to LLMs).

The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.

I don't think it is just an excuse; I believe that improving security is also a goal... but removing GPL code is clearly also part of their motivation :(

[–] pixeldaemon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

Eliminating some obscure bugs from C code is not worth intruducing a lot of new bugs. GNU coreutils have been used and polished for so long, that it would be far more effective just to fix the issues as they reveal right in the original code. If rewriting removes one kind of bugs while introducing another - then what's the whole point?

I cannot imagine obviously buggy code from 2020s being more secure than code that has been around since previous century. Again, even if Rust for real is a better solution for security reasons, the way it is being developed and shipped is not how one makes software more secure. Disregarding the license, uutils look like something pursuing hype, not strategical benefits.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

But bruh, "if it compiles, it works". Who needs testing now that we have blazing safe rust with AI?

"Ship fast and break things", bruh.

That's the sad point where the software industry is at these days.

In a few years people will be locked-in with some proprietary Linux distro variants made by big tech and they will wonder how that happened.

People show stop a moment and reflect on why the GNU license exists in the first place.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] somegeek@programming.dev 42 points 2 days ago (11 children)

The real shitshow is it's MIT licensing. Corporate takeover 101

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What an absolute shitshow

I'd say the month of June is actually a good time to be breaking and fixing things in a release that is due to come out in (checks notes) October.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release and definitely it should not have a break in something basic just because the language used to write the command break backword compatibilty

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release

Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski (Jeff Bridges), Walter Sobchak (John Goodman), and Donny Kerabatsos (Steve Buscemi) in the 3rd bowling alley scene in The Big Lebowski (1998), with subtitle "Year? Well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man."

This bug was reported (and resolved by rolling back to the GNU coreutils version of cp) on June 30, a little over 15 weeks prior to the scheduled release date.

Which distros have a feature freeze that far in advance?

Ubuntu hasn't even scheduled theirs for 26.10 yet; if you edit that url to look at previous releases' schedules you can see their feature freeze and debian import freezes are typically about 2 months prior to release. (See here for descriptions of all of the different types of freezes...)

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago

I like staying up to date about open source but holy cow is there too many of these "omg they broke something in testing". Yah, that's the point.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I love rust, but I absolutely hate how it's used to jam MIT licenses where GPL belongs. Maybe it's time we consider using corpos tools against them, and use an AI to rewrite GNU utils to Rust, so that people can continue contributing to Rust while not feeding corps?

Edit: Though licensing AI software is iffy at besst, you've got to own the copyright to something to licence it: Non-human productions are legally non-copyrightable. Also it might be better to just have humans do it anyway. The intent of my message was just that maybe we ought to deprive MIT-licensed projects from FOSS-motivated developers by providing Rust GPL alternatives to MIT/corporate Rust projects

[–] bradboimler@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't the MIT license independent of the choice of Rust?

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Rust often ends up just being an excuse to rewrite software with corporate-friendly licenses without copyleft. That's not necessarily true though, Lemmy itself is Rust & licenced under AGPL

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can use rust and still use the GPL.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

My issue isn't with Rust as a language at all, I quite enjoy making my projects with it. My issue is with "Rust rewrites" of GPL software, only to have those rewrites be licensed under MIT/Apache. To me it signifies that these rewrites were never about the safety features of Rust, but that they are attempts at pushing out the GPL

[–] zstg@programming.dev 34 points 2 days ago (16 children)

The project hasn't had a stable release, and yes, it does certainly need more testing to uncover edge cases.

Yes, MIT bad, but one must not diss on the project just because it has been written in Rust.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem isn't the language. It's the cargo cult that surrounds it.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 22 points 2 days ago

I see what you did there

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

That cp went really hard apparently!

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

People will blame Rust for the incompetence of Ubuntu team to adopt the uutils as default prematurely.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago

they broke something in testing. that's not incompetence, that's the whole point.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›