4 ms·

So this surprises me, obviously this is early discussion about a potential topic, but the general consensus seemed to be more positive than I thought. I though

So this surprises me, obviously this is early discussion about a potential topic, but the general consensus seemed to be more positive than I thought. I thought I'd remembered reading something (maybe from linus) that seemed very against having rust in the kernel, can anyone find a source for that, I searched a little and can't? (caveat, I obviously realise that linus isn't supporting rust in the kernel, and is only saying something bounded that, if we have it, it shouldn't be completely hidden behind some config options, but it doesn't match my memory)

gtirloni 6y ago
Maybe you're remembering Theo's comments about Rust in OpenBSD? https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2
- mijoharas 6y ago
  I think you're right actually! Thanks for finding it for me.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  The sad part is that Theo's answer on the thread seems to be one of the most polite and realistic ones
  - ColanR 6y ago
    This was interesting to read: > Such ecosystems [Rust] come with incredible costs. For instance, rust cannot even compile itself on i386 at present time because it exhausts the address space.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      This may be solved now that rustc can bootstrap itself via cranelift.
    - imhoguy 6y ago
      But is that a huge issue? One could compile on better machine with i386 target, no?
      - ColanR 6y ago
        According to the link above, in openbsd the policy is that 'base builds base'. Rust can't be included in the base on i386 without violation of that policy.
        estebank 6y ago
        And this is a reasonable and understandable policy. It just means that Rust in it's current form is not a good fit for OpenBSD base system.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Shame I hadn't seen that thread. He's right that most of the rust projects "replacing" standard Unix utils are not feature equivalent and differ in intent, but that doesn't mean there aren't other efforts to do exactly what he is asking. Eg here's tac (admittedly not cat, but hey, ./goo | tac | tac) published a few months before his email: https://github.com/neosmart/tac https://github.com/neosmart/tac

gtirloni 6y ago

Maybe you're remembering Theo's comments about Rust in OpenBSD? https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2

mijoharas 6y ago
I think you're right actually! Thanks for finding it for me.
raverbashing 6y ago
The sad part is that Theo's answer on the thread seems to be one of the most polite and realistic ones
- ColanR 6y ago
  This was interesting to read: > Such ecosystems [Rust] come with incredible costs. For instance, rust cannot even compile itself on i386 at present time because it exhausts the address space.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    This may be solved now that rustc can bootstrap itself via cranelift.
  - imhoguy 6y ago
    But is that a huge issue? One could compile on better machine with i386 target, no?
    - ColanR 6y ago
      According to the link above, in openbsd the policy is that 'base builds base'. Rust can't be included in the base on i386 without violation of that policy.
      - estebank 6y ago
        And this is a reasonable and understandable policy. It just means that Rust in it's current form is not a good fit for OpenBSD base system.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
Shame I hadn't seen that thread. He's right that most of the rust projects "replacing" standard Unix utils are not feature equivalent and differ in intent, but that doesn't mean there aren't other efforts to do exactly what he is asking. Eg here's tac (admittedly not cat, but hey, ./goo | tac | tac) published a few months before his email: https://github.com/neosmart/tac https://github.com/neosmart/tac