3 ms·
I think your use of "force-jam" suggests a bias you may have. Making existing, well-used OS kernels safer is probably a lot easier than writing a new kernel fr
by kelnos 2y ago
I think your use of "force-jam" suggests a bias you may have.
Making existing, well-used OS kernels safer is probably a lot easier than writing a new kernel from scratch, porting drivers, marketing it, and gaining a larger user base.
Not saying that's not a worthwhile endeavor, but it's up to everyone to decide what they want to do.
Ultimately the maintainers of a non-Rust project will decide if they want Rust in there. No amount of "force-jamming" is going to make it happen without their considered consent.
- JackSlateur 2y agoQuick note: "rewrite in <..>" should be consider kind of harmful FFI are not fine, an insane amount of care must be taken around them It means that rewriting part of something in rust has chances to reduce the overall security of the software
- bbatha 2y agoThis wasn't a request to rewrite anything in Rust. This was a request to have the facilities to build Rust in FreeBSD base (which includes userland and kernel code). Specifically the request was to write new code in Rust.
- snvzz 2y agoThe request was to -metaphorically- extend the red carpet to some external rust proponents.
- snvzz 2y ago>I think your use of "force-jam" suggests a bias I find my use of force-jam was entirely appropriate, after careful consideration informed by the How rust proponents push rust into pre-existing projects. As well as the drama they bring alongside them, and their propensity to resort to personal attacks.