4 ms·

Rust must be removed from the kernel. It is a huge time sink for smaller companies to deal with another language and frameworks. Effort should be focused on get

by b20000 2y ago

Rust must be removed from the kernel. It is a huge time sink for smaller companies to deal with another language and frameworks. Effort should be focused on getting more hardware support mainlined such that device manufacturers have less work which will increase adoption. Memory safety can be addressed via kernel tools or frameworks and should not be the job of a language IMHO.

Faaak 2y ago
Sorry for this non-hn reply, but "lol"
phi-go 2y ago
Isn't Rust only used for kernel modules? So no one needs to depend on Rust code if not needed?
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  That is correct, yes.
- b20000 2y ago
  i don’t want to learn rust to write a driver.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Then write your driver in C? The claim is that Rust makes it easier to produce high-quality drivers, but nobody's mandating it.
hamandcheese 2y ago
As a user I am not particularly sympathetic to the economic concerns of some small company if that comes at the expense of my security. And Rust does seem to be increasing the rate and level of support small outfits can offer - see Asahi Linux for an example of that.
- b20000 2y ago
  security or safety is not necessary in many situations and should not be forced onto users. if your usage requires that fine. don’t place your requirements on other users. also you are basically saying adopting linux is only for big tech. i don’t think that is in the spirit of open source.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > security or safety is not necessary in many situations and should not be forced onto users. > if your usage requires that fine. don’t place your requirements on other users. Conversely, if you don't care about code quality feel free to not use Linux or make your own in-house patches without contaminating the kernel other people are trying to use. > also you are basically saying adopting linux is only for big tech. i don’t think that is in the spirit of open source. If only "big tech" can write kernel code safely then so be it. Of course, I think that premise is nonsense, but I don't care about the onramp enough to compromise on security.
  - hamandcheese 2y ago
    Security and safety are always important.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
IshKebab 2y ago
I see these frankly crazy opinions fairly regularly and I'm genuinely curious how you come to these conclusions. Have you written much C or C++? What kind of kernel tools or frameworks are you thinking of? Have you ever used Rust? Are you familiar with the different kinds of memory errors? I really struggle to imagine how anyone who is actually familiar with all this stuff could say things like this but you aren't the first...
- b20000 2y ago
  i have 20 years of experience writing software in C++. i don’t need or want rust.
  - TwentyPosts 2y ago
    Have you ever tried? I think most C++ people will (after using it for a while) begrudgingly admit that it is a very nice language, at least in some regards.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    So you must be very familiar with making and debugging memory management mistakes then? In 20 years of C++ you must have run into more than a few difficult-to-debug memory corruption bugs. So do you just not mind the frustration and time wasted debugging these issues?
jeroenhd 2y ago
This reads like a comment from twenty years ago, to be honest. Memory safety could've been addressed through kernel tools and frameworks for decades, but it hasn't. And it _should_ be part of the language, as even low level languages like C try not to clobber memory and specify undefined behaviour in cases where you may accidentally end up doing it anyway. There are good arguments for and against other Rust features such as the way panic!() works and the strictness of the borrow checker. However, "C and tooling can do everything your fancy pants new language does" has been said for longer than I've been alive and yet every month I see CVE reports about major projects caused by bugs that would never have passed the Rust compiler. Out of every reason I can think of, a lack of hardware support seems like the least likely reason for a hardware manufacturer not to upstream hardware support. Look at companies like Qualcom, with massive ranges of devices and working kernel drivers, hacked together because upstreaming doesn't benefit them. Look at companies like Apple, who doesn't care if their software works on Linux or not. The Linux kernel supports everything from 90s supercomputers to drones to smart toothbrushes, there's no lack of hardware support.
- b20000 2y ago
  remember java? they forced OO onto users. a huge mistake. developers should not be forced to use a paradigm. same with memory safety. if they don’t get it, find better developers and pay more. essentially you are saying rust is great because companies can hire clueless people and rust will compensate for their inability. it’s clear from your comment you never built a device yourself running linux on an obscure SoC dealing with patches that were never accepted.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    Java has been proven to work fine. I wouldn't use it for programming an OS, but it's absolutely massive for web development and other backend stuff. Applying patches to the Linux kernel isn't that hard? Porting abandoned code sucks, but putting in the work to finish and include the patches would just move that annoying work to the rest of the kernel instead of a few people working on weird SoCs. > essentially you are saying rust is great because companies can hire clueless people and rust will compensate for their inability That's not what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that nobody is perfect, not even C developers. Even if the mythical perfect C developer, who writes bugless code, does all the necessary sanitization, and always applies the necessary layers of tooling even when personally inconvenient, does exist, they can make better use of their time by using a language toolset that doesn't necessitate that extra work in the first place, regardless of whether that's Rust, C++, Zig, Frama-C, Carbon or Jakt. The "everybody who makes mistakes is clueless" crowd is exactly why C developers get such a bad rep. C compilers have a billion warnings and -Weverything -Wnoimeaneverything -Wnoeverysinglething exactly because C developers, like any other developers, need help.

by b20000 2y ago

Faaak 2y ago

Sorry for this non-hn reply, but "lol"

phi-go 2y ago

Isn't Rust only used for kernel modules? So no one needs to depend on Rust code if not needed?

steveklabnik 2y ago
That is correct, yes.
b20000 2y ago
i don’t want to learn rust to write a driver.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Then write your driver in C? The claim is that Rust makes it easier to produce high-quality drivers, but nobody's mandating it.

hamandcheese 2y ago

As a user I am not particularly sympathetic to the economic concerns of some small company if that comes at the expense of my security. And Rust does seem to be increasing the rate and level of support small outfits can offer - see Asahi Linux for an example of that.

b20000 2y ago
security or safety is not necessary in many situations and should not be forced onto users. if your usage requires that fine. don’t place your requirements on other users. also you are basically saying adopting linux is only for big tech. i don’t think that is in the spirit of open source.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > security or safety is not necessary in many situations and should not be forced onto users. > if your usage requires that fine. don’t place your requirements on other users. Conversely, if you don't care about code quality feel free to not use Linux or make your own in-house patches without contaminating the kernel other people are trying to use. > also you are basically saying adopting linux is only for big tech. i don’t think that is in the spirit of open source. If only "big tech" can write kernel code safely then so be it. Of course, I think that premise is nonsense, but I don't care about the onramp enough to compromise on security.
- hamandcheese 2y ago
  Security and safety are always important.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

IshKebab 2y ago

I see these frankly crazy opinions fairly regularly and I'm genuinely curious how you come to these conclusions. Have you written much C or C++? What kind of kernel tools or frameworks are you thinking of? Have you ever used Rust? Are you familiar with the different kinds of memory errors? I really struggle to imagine how anyone who is actually familiar with all this stuff could say things like this but you aren't the first...

b20000 2y ago
i have 20 years of experience writing software in C++. i don’t need or want rust.
- TwentyPosts 2y ago
  Have you ever tried? I think most C++ people will (after using it for a while) begrudgingly admit that it is a very nice language, at least in some regards.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  So you must be very familiar with making and debugging memory management mistakes then? In 20 years of C++ you must have run into more than a few difficult-to-debug memory corruption bugs. So do you just not mind the frustration and time wasted debugging these issues?

jeroenhd 2y ago

This reads like a comment from twenty years ago, to be honest. Memory safety could've been addressed through kernel tools and frameworks for decades, but it hasn't. And it _should_ be part of the language, as even low level languages like C try not to clobber memory and specify undefined behaviour in cases where you may accidentally end up doing it anyway. There are good arguments for and against other Rust features such as the way panic!() works and the strictness of the borrow checker. However, "C and tooling can do everything your fancy pants new language does" has been said for longer than I've been alive and yet every month I see CVE reports about major projects caused by bugs that would never have passed the Rust compiler. Out of every reason I can think of, a lack of hardware support seems like the least likely reason for a hardware manufacturer not to upstream hardware support. Look at companies like Qualcom, with massive ranges of devices and working kernel drivers, hacked together because upstreaming doesn't benefit them. Look at companies like Apple, who doesn't care if their software works on Linux or not. The Linux kernel supports everything from 90s supercomputers to drones to smart toothbrushes, there's no lack of hardware support.

b20000 2y ago
remember java? they forced OO onto users. a huge mistake. developers should not be forced to use a paradigm. same with memory safety. if they don’t get it, find better developers and pay more. essentially you are saying rust is great because companies can hire clueless people and rust will compensate for their inability. it’s clear from your comment you never built a device yourself running linux on an obscure SoC dealing with patches that were never accepted.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  Java has been proven to work fine. I wouldn't use it for programming an OS, but it's absolutely massive for web development and other backend stuff. Applying patches to the Linux kernel isn't that hard? Porting abandoned code sucks, but putting in the work to finish and include the patches would just move that annoying work to the rest of the kernel instead of a few people working on weird SoCs. > essentially you are saying rust is great because companies can hire clueless people and rust will compensate for their inability That's not what I'm saying, at all. What I'm saying is that nobody is perfect, not even C developers. Even if the mythical perfect C developer, who writes bugless code, does all the necessary sanitization, and always applies the necessary layers of tooling even when personally inconvenient, does exist, they can make better use of their time by using a language toolset that doesn't necessitate that extra work in the first place, regardless of whether that's Rust, C++, Zig, Frama-C, Carbon or Jakt. The "everybody who makes mistakes is clueless" crowd is exactly why C developers get such a bad rep. C compilers have a billion warnings and -Weverything -Wnoimeaneverything -Wnoeverysinglething exactly because C developers, like any other developers, need help.