6 ms·

I disagree with the general sentiment in this thread that this is a useless immature move. Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not th

I disagree with the general sentiment in this thread that this is a useless immature move. Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. This is similar to a strike where ultimately your goal is not to destroy the company or to quit and leave, but to achieve better conditions. In both cases it sometimes works and sometimes not and in both cases, just because it might not work does not make it an immature move.

solarkraft 3y ago
It's the threat of people abandoning the current leadership. It has to be credible to make a change.
- cookieperson 3y ago
  Maybe it'd be a good idea to just clean house and elect new people. Possibly even people who resigned exclusively and some people with emotional maturity.
- yawpitch 3y ago
  Too bad it isn’t credible.
lloeki 3y ago
cue node.js - io.js and gcc - egcs
- usrusr 3y ago
  I was about to mention EGCS, then looked it up to refresh my memory: wow, that split didn't even last two years, crazy how the passage of time changes as you become less young.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Or the short lived "@ lang", a fork of typescript or javascript (I believe) that added annotations because the Angular developers really wanted annotations. I can't even find any information about it anymore, maybe my google skills are failing.
  - ralmidani 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- _nalply 3y ago
  I started reading up the history of gcc. It's really fascinating. Stallman made the first release 1987. This means gcc is 36 years old if you count the first release as birth. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History I want to find out more about egcs. TIL that there was a fork of gcc.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Or voting third-party with the hope that it makes the margin of victory for the "serious" candidate fall within the number of third-party voters.
jasonlotito 3y ago
CrabLang doesn't want to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. They 100% support all the decisions the Rust Project made. CrabLang was created to get people to out themselves who hate Rust and want to see it fail. Anyways... > The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. That's not what this fork says is the objective. https://crablang.org/ https://crablang.org/ > We simply want to use [Rust] while retaining the ability to create content and promote its name, logo, and other assets however we please, without the limitations imposed by a trademark policy. The Trademark Policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#trademark-policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... > The most basic rule is that the Rust trademarks cannot be used in ways that appear (to a casual observer) official, affiliated, or endorsed by the Rust project or Rust Foundation, unless you have written permission from the Rust Foundation. So, from what I gather, CrabLang opposes this. In which case, CrabLang wanted to use the Rust trademarks to deceive people into thinking it's endorsed by the project and foundation. Which is an odd stance to take, because that's them saying they want people to use CrabLang to deceive people into thinking CrabLang endorses things it does not. ;)
- wccrawford 3y ago
  >In which case, CrabLang wanted to use the Rust trademarks to deceive people into thinking it's endorsed by the project and foundation. Instead, I see their statement as a visceral reaction to some legal threat they received that they don't think was valid. They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone, they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget" or something and don't like that they are open to legal action from that because someone might think that's an official Rust project, when it's not... Even if most people would know it's not. I'm not privy to any information in this debate, I just don't support your interpretation of their words. I think mine is a more charitable interpretation until further evidence of their actual meaning comes to light.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    > they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget" That's already explicitly covered by their trademark policy. > Using the Rust trademarks in the names of non-commercial products like RustPostgres or Rustymine, or in the name of code repositories in e.g. GitHub, is allowed when referring to use with or suitability for the Rust programming language. Such uses may also include the Rust logo, even in modified form. For commercial products (including crowdfunded or sponsored ones), please check in with us to ensure your use does not appear official. > They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone That's the intent of the policy they oppose, so... /shrug
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. I see it as: there's a finite amount of people who choose to dedicate their unpaid free time contributing to making Rust better (working on fixing bugs, new features, etc.) This seems like fragmentation which basically will slow down progress. Now, obviously the people who choose to dedicate their free time to open source software are entitled to do whatever they want with it. I don't know the details of what part of what leadership is doing what that equates to "being a meanie" and I don't know who is "being dramatic" and who isn't. All I know is, I'm grateful for their contributions and wish everybody could get along. This is kind of "not a good thing" for progress when you look at it from a delivery perspective.
- jb3689 3y ago
  Not to downplay any of your points, but as a counterpoint, I'm not sure this was true for Vim/Neovim. Perhaps I'm only looking at short-term gains though and not long-term fragmentation
  - kjs3 3y ago
    I believe the various BSDs would be another example. There have always been folks who argue that fragmentation/lack of developers/etc would kill them. Not yet, fortunately.
  - lr1970 3y ago
    > Not to downplay any of your points, but as a counterpoint, I'm not sure this was true for Vim/Neovim. On the contrary. Emergence on neovim had a positive impact on vim speed of development, and Bram's attitude to new features (vim terminal, async, etc) softened a lot. He has also become more open to contributions from others. Even though vim-9 and neovim are on divergent paths they are both better because of the competition.
- tedivm 3y ago
  You're making a huge assumption with the "unpaid free time" part of this. A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).
timkofu 3y ago
It’s evidence of division and strife. They have allowed the environment to get toxic. Groups that were planning on adopting Rust will now think twice, as it’s future now looks uncertain. All organizations that produce something valuable face this test, it’s the ones that don’t fracture that succeed.
- reactordev 3y ago
  This. When tech leaders look at Rust as a solution for legacy products and services - then see Crab grab - it makes them think the ecosystem isn't mature enough for their 25+yr old platform.
  - Woodi 3y ago
    No. Linux adopted it. MS adopted it (but that can easily be meanningless). So it is quite mature. And you are saying that multitude of C compilers make C less mature ?? You are literally saying "tech leaders" use some kind of reverse logic :) Maybe Mozilla isn't Oracle but "trademarking" lang name is just Java-like move.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      Rust support was limited in scope and extremely experimental in Linux. It's more likely to be removed if the effort failed (which it seems to be) than it was to be added in the first place.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jurimasa 3y ago
    They would be correct. It is not mature.
- kaycey2022 3y ago
  It was inevitable given the pushy nature of their evangelists. People who fall out of a cult are it's fiercest enemies.
rozab 3y ago
That's an interesting viewpoint, it parallels the outsized influence small parties exert in FPTP electoral systems (at least in functioning ones)
predictabl3 3y ago
If I were in Rust leadership, I would have a very hard time not seeing this as a personal failing and resigning. I'm not privy to any insider information, but this feels like a situation where I'd leave with a lot more respect for involved people if they said "I love Rust, and I need to step down for the sake of trust and the community.". But, much as some would like to imagine technical projects as being above it, PPP gets in the way (personalities, pride, politics).
- WinstonSmith84 3y ago
  Well. If you were in the Rust leadership, with such state of mind as to say "I love Rust, and I need to step down for the sake of trust and the community." I don't think you'd have hired a lawyer to defend the trademark ...
giancarlostoro 3y ago
I would like to remind everyone of the time where NodeJS was forked into a more bleeding edge version of Node, and eventually down the line, all the changes were pulled into NodeJS and things were consolidated. Edit: It was iojs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8694953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8694953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557
- ChickeNES 3y ago
  Or much longer ago, egcs being forked from gcc and later being subsumed back into the original project by the FSF
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    Or XEmacs forking off from Emacs in 1993. Although that didn't so much get subsumed but basically died a decade or so ago when most of the features XEmacs provided had been added to normal Emacs.

solarkraft 3y ago

It's the threat of people abandoning the current leadership. It has to be credible to make a change.

cookieperson 3y ago
Maybe it'd be a good idea to just clean house and elect new people. Possibly even people who resigned exclusively and some people with emotional maturity.
yawpitch 3y ago
Too bad it isn’t credible.

lloeki 3y ago

cue node.js - io.js and gcc - egcs

usrusr 3y ago
I was about to mention EGCS, then looked it up to refresh my memory: wow, that split didn't even last two years, crazy how the passage of time changes as you become less young.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Or the short lived "@ lang", a fork of typescript or javascript (I believe) that added annotations because the Angular developers really wanted annotations. I can't even find any information about it anymore, maybe my google skills are failing.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtScript
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_nalply 3y ago
I started reading up the history of gcc. It's really fascinating. Stallman made the first release 1987. This means gcc is 36 years old if you count the first release as birth. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History I want to find out more about egcs. TIL that there was a fork of gcc.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

Or voting third-party with the hope that it makes the margin of victory for the "serious" candidate fall within the number of third-party voters.

jasonlotito 3y ago

CrabLang doesn't want to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. They 100% support all the decisions the Rust Project made. CrabLang was created to get people to out themselves who hate Rust and want to see it fail. Anyways... > The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. That's not what this fork says is the objective. https://crablang.org/ https://crablang.org/ > We simply want to use [Rust] while retaining the ability to create content and promote its name, logo, and other assets however we please, without the limitations imposed by a trademark policy. The Trademark Policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#trademark-policy https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... > The most basic rule is that the Rust trademarks cannot be used in ways that appear (to a casual observer) official, affiliated, or endorsed by the Rust project or Rust Foundation, unless you have written permission from the Rust Foundation. So, from what I gather, CrabLang opposes this. In which case, CrabLang wanted to use the Rust trademarks to deceive people into thinking it's endorsed by the project and foundation. Which is an odd stance to take, because that's them saying they want people to use CrabLang to deceive people into thinking CrabLang endorses things it does not. ;)

wccrawford 3y ago
>In which case, CrabLang wanted to use the Rust trademarks to deceive people into thinking it's endorsed by the project and foundation. Instead, I see their statement as a visceral reaction to some legal threat they received that they don't think was valid. They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone, they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget" or something and don't like that they are open to legal action from that because someone might think that's an official Rust project, when it's not... Even if most people would know it's not. I'm not privy to any information in this debate, I just don't support your interpretation of their words. I think mine is a more charitable interpretation until further evidence of their actual meaning comes to light.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  > they just wanted to name their project "Rust Widget" That's already explicitly covered by their trademark policy. > Using the Rust trademarks in the names of non-commercial products like RustPostgres or Rustymine, or in the name of code repositories in e.g. GitHub, is allowed when referring to use with or suitability for the Rust programming language. Such uses may also include the Rust logo, even in modified form. For commercial products (including crowdfunded or sponsored ones), please check in with us to ensure your use does not appear official. > They probably weren't trying to deceive anyone That's the intent of the policy they oppose, so... /shrug

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

> Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. I see it as: there's a finite amount of people who choose to dedicate their unpaid free time contributing to making Rust better (working on fixing bugs, new features, etc.) This seems like fragmentation which basically will slow down progress. Now, obviously the people who choose to dedicate their free time to open source software are entitled to do whatever they want with it. I don't know the details of what part of what leadership is doing what that equates to "being a meanie" and I don't know who is "being dramatic" and who isn't. All I know is, I'm grateful for their contributions and wish everybody could get along. This is kind of "not a good thing" for progress when you look at it from a delivery perspective.

jb3689 3y ago
Not to downplay any of your points, but as a counterpoint, I'm not sure this was true for Vim/Neovim. Perhaps I'm only looking at short-term gains though and not long-term fragmentation
- kjs3 3y ago
  I believe the various BSDs would be another example. There have always been folks who argue that fragmentation/lack of developers/etc would kill them. Not yet, fortunately.
- lr1970 3y ago
  > Not to downplay any of your points, but as a counterpoint, I'm not sure this was true for Vim/Neovim. On the contrary. Emergence on neovim had a positive impact on vim speed of development, and Bram's attitude to new features (vim terminal, async, etc) softened a lot. He has also become more open to contributions from others. Even though vim-9 and neovim are on divergent paths they are both better because of the competition.
tedivm 3y ago
You're making a huge assumption with the "unpaid free time" part of this. A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).

timkofu 3y ago

It’s evidence of division and strife. They have allowed the environment to get toxic. Groups that were planning on adopting Rust will now think twice, as it’s future now looks uncertain. All organizations that produce something valuable face this test, it’s the ones that don’t fracture that succeed.

reactordev 3y ago
This. When tech leaders look at Rust as a solution for legacy products and services - then see Crab grab - it makes them think the ecosystem isn't mature enough for their 25+yr old platform.
- Woodi 3y ago
  No. Linux adopted it. MS adopted it (but that can easily be meanningless). So it is quite mature. And you are saying that multitude of C compilers make C less mature ?? You are literally saying "tech leaders" use some kind of reverse logic :) Maybe Mozilla isn't Oracle but "trademarking" lang name is just Java-like move.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    Rust support was limited in scope and extremely experimental in Linux. It's more likely to be removed if the effort failed (which it seems to be) than it was to be added in the first place.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jurimasa 3y ago
  They would be correct. It is not mature.
kaycey2022 3y ago
It was inevitable given the pushy nature of their evangelists. People who fall out of a cult are it's fiercest enemies.

rozab 3y ago

That's an interesting viewpoint, it parallels the outsized influence small parties exert in FPTP electoral systems (at least in functioning ones)

predictabl3 3y ago

If I were in Rust leadership, I would have a very hard time not seeing this as a personal failing and resigning. I'm not privy to any insider information, but this feels like a situation where I'd leave with a lot more respect for involved people if they said "I love Rust, and I need to step down for the sake of trust and the community.". But, much as some would like to imagine technical projects as being above it, PPP gets in the way (personalities, pride, politics).

WinstonSmith84 3y ago
Well. If you were in the Rust leadership, with such state of mind as to say "I love Rust, and I need to step down for the sake of trust and the community." I don't think you'd have hired a lawyer to defend the trademark ...

giancarlostoro 3y ago

I would like to remind everyone of the time where NodeJS was forked into a more bleeding edge version of Node, and eventually down the line, all the changes were pulled into NodeJS and things were consolidated. Edit: It was iojs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8694953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8694953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557

ChickeNES 3y ago
Or much longer ago, egcs being forked from gcc and later being subsumed back into the original project by the FSF
- jhbadger 3y ago
  Or XEmacs forking off from Emacs in 1993. Although that didn't so much get subsumed but basically died a decade or so ago when most of the features XEmacs provided had been added to normal Emacs.