arendjr

joined 1 year ago
[–] arendjr@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago

:D

From your other responses I can see you're being sarcastic, but yeah, seems that many won't read any further after seeing the word monarchy :shrug:

[–] arendjr@programming.dev -3 points 4 months ago (14 children)

There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.

In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

But he did step in, albeit privately. I actually agree an earlier public statement would have helped, but we don’t know the specifics of what went on behind the scenes.

In any case, I don’t think it’s fair to assign blame for Marcan’s burnout to Linus, as the post above did. Marcan himself mentioned personal reasons too when he announced his departure. I think we should show understanding and patience with both sides, and assigning blame isn’t helping with that.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 15 points 4 months ago

That now involves fixing Rust drivers, so you’re going to need to know Rust.

I also don’t think the latter follows from the former. You can continue to not know Rust as long as you’re willing to work with those that can. Problems only start if you’re unwilling to collaborate.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 21 points 4 months ago (6 children)

You’re implying that Linus is somehow responsible for burning out Marcan? I don’t think that’s a fair assessment.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 35 points 4 months ago (11 children)

So far, the only good argument I have really seen from the ones opposing the Rust4Linux effort comes down to: adding Rust to a C codebase introduces a lot of complexity that is hard to deal with.

But the argument offers no solution except to give up and not even attempt to address the real issues the kernel struggles with. It’s effectively a form of defeatism when you want to give up and don’t want to let others attempt to do what you don’t see as feasible.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Fair, just wanted to point out that the monarchy class I’m proposing is actually a communist class intended to keep the capitalist/socialist citizenry in check. So there may be more in it than you might have realised from the abstract alone.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

in my case at least leads me to questioning how our political and social systems can change for the better.

Glad to see like-minded people here! I actually just finished a manifesto on this exact topic:

https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/

It’s quite the read, but I’d be happy to hear your feedback.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So far, it doesn’t seem that they have broken any laws or whatever, that would cause the system to reject their workings.

They are breaking laws, including the constitution. The courts are trying to reject it, but have no method to enforce their rulings when the executive branch willingly ignores them and even explicitly lies the blame with the courts for trying to protect the system.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5294666/trump-white-house-constitutional-crisis-judges

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

The formatter is similar to Prettier in that regard, yes. Recently we decided to deviate in one specific case for accessibility reasons, but it’s a rare exception: https://fosstodon.org/@biomejs/113163964170882716

The linter is less opinionated, but it’s not concerned with formatting.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, but this mindset is hurting both Linux and security in general.

The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.

This is frankly quite obviously false. Microsoft started taking security more seriously around the release of Windows 2000. Are you saying the Linux kernel developers took another 15 years to realize security is important?

Security research shows that new code is more prone to common vulnerabilities than old code is. While old code may have been designed with weak (or no) security considerations, those are well-mitigated by now. On the contrary, new code still regularly contains exploitable memory safety issues that slip by review.

What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.

We have skilled programmers who understand security. Those also understand that we need more than that.

Continuing to use C doesn’t merely require skilled programmers, it requires programmers that never make any mistake ever. That’s an infeasible standard for any human to uphold, hence why C is considered a risk.

view more: ‹ prev next ›