3 ms·

> if Linux had been built with safety in mind security would be a lot simpler I'm replying simply because you're getting defensive with your edits, but you're

> if Linux had been built with safety in mind security would be a lot simpler I'm replying simply because you're getting defensive with your edits, but you're missing a few important points, IMO. First of all, the comment I quoted falls straight into the category of if only we knew back then what we know now. What does it even mean "built with safety in mind" for a project like Linux? No one could predict that Linux (which was born as a kernel) would run on billions of devices that people keep in their pockets and constantly use for everything, from booking a table at the restaurant to checking the weather, from chatting with other people to accessing their bank accounts. And that said banks would use it too. Literally no one. Computers were barely connected back then, internet wasn't even a thing outside of research centers and universities. So, what kind of safety should he have planned for? And to safeguard what from what and who from who? Secondly, Linux was born as a collaborative effort to write something already old: a monolithic Unix like kernel, nothing fancy, nothing new, nothing experimental, just plain old established stuff for Linus to learn how that kernel thing worked. The most important thing about it was to be a collaborative effort so he used a language that he and many others already knew. Did Linus use something more suited for stronger safety guarantees, such as Ada (someone else already mentioned it), Linux wouldn't be the huge success it is now and we would not be having this conversation. Lastly, the strongest Linux safety guarantee is IMO the GPL license, that conveniently all these Rust rewrites are turning into more permissive licenses. Which steers away from what Linux was, and still largely is, a community effort based on the work of thousands of volunteers.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
> Lastly, the strongest Linux safety guarantee is IMO the GPL license, that conveniently all these Rust rewrites are turning into more permissive licenses. Which steers away from what Linux was, and still largely is, a community effort based on the work of thousands of volunteers. There is nothing about permissive licenses which prevents the project from being such a community effort. In fact, most of the Rust ecosystem is a community effort just like you describe, while most projects have permissive licenses. There's no issue here.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > There's no issue here Tell that to Microsoft. GPL protected Linux when Linux started to become a threat to the most powerful tech company on Earth of the time, famous for their "embrace and extend" tactic. Rust had no such problem, it was started by a company that every year takes hundreds of millions (81% of their revenues in 2022) from one of the most powerful tech companies on Earth.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    I genuinely have no idea what your point is.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      If I am contributing to a community project, made by the people for the people, GPL protects my work from being stolen by corporations that pack it up and sell it for a price. GPL means you work on something and in return you get something from someone else that improved on your work, you can't keep any published change private. GPL also means that if someone forks the original source code and makes substantial changes, the subsequent work must be licensed under the GPL (what MS called the "viral nature"), nobody can re-license it, unless all the other contributors agree to it. GPL software cannot be acquired to kill it, like Google or Apple do all the time, or severely cripple it after the acquisition. It's a form of social contact that guarantees that no one gets screwed or exploited. It grows on users' needs not on VC growth needs. That's how Linux got big. BSD was already 20 years old when Linux started and yet BSD is nowhere near the popularity of Linux.
      - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        EDIT: BSD was 12 years old when Linus started Linux.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> Lastly, the strongest Linux safety guarantee is IMO the GPL license, that conveniently all these Rust rewrites are turning into more permissive licenses. Which steers away from what Linux was, and still largely is, a community effort based on the work of thousands of volunteers. There is nothing about permissive licenses which prevents the project from being such a community effort. In fact, most of the Rust ecosystem is a community effort just like you describe, while most projects have permissive licenses. There's no issue here.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> There's no issue here Tell that to Microsoft. GPL protected Linux when Linux started to become a threat to the most powerful tech company on Earth of the time, famous for their "embrace and extend" tactic. Rust had no such problem, it was started by a company that every year takes hundreds of millions (81% of their revenues in 2022) from one of the most powerful tech companies on Earth.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  I genuinely have no idea what your point is.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    If I am contributing to a community project, made by the people for the people, GPL protects my work from being stolen by corporations that pack it up and sell it for a price. GPL means you work on something and in return you get something from someone else that improved on your work, you can't keep any published change private. GPL also means that if someone forks the original source code and makes substantial changes, the subsequent work must be licensed under the GPL (what MS called the "viral nature"), nobody can re-license it, unless all the other contributors agree to it. GPL software cannot be acquired to kill it, like Google or Apple do all the time, or severely cripple it after the acquisition. It's a form of social contact that guarantees that no one gets screwed or exploited. It grows on users' needs not on VC growth needs. That's how Linux got big. BSD was already 20 years old when Linux started and yet BSD is nowhere near the popularity of Linux.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      EDIT: BSD was 12 years old when Linus started Linux.