5 ms·

Unless the Linux developer community at large requested Rust in the kernel, this is good news.

by pif 2y ago

rowanG077 2y ago
Good news for whom? The mental safe space of old time kernel developers? Or good new for users who will continue to have to deal with kernel panics and other memory issues.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > users who will continue to have to deal with kernel panics and other memory issues. I have not seen many of those in my close to 32 years of involvement with Linux. In the beginning of the project they did occur 'every now and then' but once Linux got past v1.2 or thereabouts they're about as rare as hen's teeth. If Rust ever becomes widespread enough for kernel developers to pick it up with ease it will be a welcome addition but until such a time I prefer for the project to remain C-focused so as not to close out a large fraction of the potential developer base. If that means that some 'competing' kernel gets written in Rust and takes over from Linux that'd be fine by me as well, may the best [1] kernel win. [1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    I admit it's not often I see a direct panic. But I do see bugs caused by memory issues relatively often. In fact two weeks ago I made a patch for a memory issue in a wifi driver that caused it to drop connections. The long list of CVE is more direct proof though. By far most of them are memory safety issues. Suggesting making a new kernel is just total FUD. This is a multi decade project. It's like saying to a person who want some legislation in their country to change "why not make your own country, may the best country win". It's just so far removed from reality I'm very surprised I have seen this argument more then once.
    - flohofwoe 2y ago
      > Suggesting making a new kernel is just total FUD. This is a multi decade project. Linux started as a hobby project of a single student and just a few years later it was already possible to build a full-blown UNIX desktop system with Linux as kernel. Why should that not be possible to replicate today? Especially with modern development tooling and a big and motivated language community?
      - pif 2y ago
        > Why should that not be possible to replicate today? What is missing is the user base! When Linus started his project, many people knew Unix in their professional life and were disappointed with what the market (M$) was proposing for the personal computer world. Today, no such multitude is waiting for the next Linux. Linux may not be perfect, but it's definitely good enough.
        flohofwoe 2y ago
        Ideally such a Rust kernel project would implement a drop-in-replacement for the Linux kernel, so that Linux distros could select between the original Linux kernel and the Rust 'imposter'. That way the users would already be there. It would just be a detail like GNOME vs KDE, X11 vs Wayland, or glibc vs MUSL.
      - rowanG077 2y ago
        What was acceptable in 1995 is not what is acceptable today. Linux took literal decades + in the billions of dollars to build. It's ridiculous to suggest a rust project can just catch up to that with a few developers and no funding in any sane timespan. If you think it's reasonable to suggest "Just outcompete this heavily and continuously developed 34 year old project which has the backing of the largest technology firms on earth" I really don't know what to tell you. We live in different realities. That doesn't even begin to touch on the problem that linux came at just the right time.
        flohofwoe 2y ago
- pif 2y ago
  > The mental safe space of old time kernel developers? As long as they are the majority of the kernel developers, their wish is what matters the most.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Not users? Linux development is it's own reward?
    - flohofwoe 2y ago
      Users should only need to care about what happens in user space. And the most important promise of Linux is "don't break user space". The kernel's programming language is literally just an internal implementation detail, irrelevant for Linux users.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Ah, I see the distinction. Thanks!
      - jimberlage 2y ago
        The security vulnerabilities that affect my PII kinda contradict the idea that the kernel is an implementation detail. It’s not an implementation detail if I do, in fact, have to care about it.
  - speed_spread 2y ago
    The wish of the lead developer is for Linux development to continue beyond the life of the current maintainers. Training to be a competent system programmer using C is unnecessary long and painful. There aren't enough C hackers coming up anymore. The Rust learning curve is a bit sharper than C for the first weeks but gets you to a competent and non-dangerous state much more quickly after that. This problem is not expected to be solved by current maintainers. They're just asked to make room for the next generation. "It should hurt you like it hurt me" is not an acceptable response.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
It is never good news that "nontechnical nonsense" causes a major maintainer to step down, regardless of Rust or not-Rust.
- pif 2y ago
  What was heard in the video was both technical and sensible.
  - commodoreboxer 2y ago
    The argument was "I don't want to learn Rust, I'm not going to learn Rust, and if you put a non-C language in the codebase, I'm going to break it without giving a shit". Not sensible in the least.
    - pif 2y ago
      I heard more like: "We have been borking like this for 26 years now and the result is amazing. If you want to introduce a new API for a couple of eventual use cases, you are welcome to do so, but don't event think to impose any additional burden on us."
  - trissi1996 2y ago
    Did we see the same video ? The rust guys were just asking for semantic information about the current C apis so they could try to encode them into the type system. All they got in response to that were made up problems of them supposedly forcing everyone to adopt their religion, rust being too OOP or other nitpicks that had nothing to do with the issue the presenters were trying to talk about. Nobody even answered their questions, people which obviously didn't even look at rust for more than an hour gave their opinion on why what they're doing is bad and destined to fail. It was rude, tone-deaf and not a single technically sound argument was actually made. I love linux and I'm fine with the maintainers deciding to use C if they want to, but the behavior by the old guard here was actually appalling and reeks of deep insecurity and inability to communicate.
    - 2y ago

Unless the Linux developer community at large requested Rust in the kernel, this is good news.

by pif 2y ago

Unless the Linux developer community at large requested Rust in the kernel, this is good news.

Good news for whom? The mental safe space of old time kernel developers? Or good new for users who will continue to have to deal with kernel panics and other memory issues.

hagbard_c 2y ago
> users who will continue to have to deal with kernel panics and other memory issues. I have not seen many of those in my close to 32 years of involvement with Linux. In the beginning of the project they did occur 'every now and then' but once Linux got past v1.2 or thereabouts they're about as rare as hen's teeth. If Rust ever becomes widespread enough for kernel developers to pick it up with ease it will be a welcome addition but until such a time I prefer for the project to remain C-focused so as not to close out a large fraction of the potential developer base. If that means that some 'competing' kernel gets written in Rust and takes over from Linux that'd be fine by me as well, may the best [1] kernel win. [1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
- rowanG077 2y ago
  I admit it's not often I see a direct panic. But I do see bugs caused by memory issues relatively often. In fact two weeks ago I made a patch for a memory issue in a wifi driver that caused it to drop connections. The long list of CVE is more direct proof though. By far most of them are memory safety issues. Suggesting making a new kernel is just total FUD. This is a multi decade project. It's like saying to a person who want some legislation in their country to change "why not make your own country, may the best country win". It's just so far removed from reality I'm very surprised I have seen this argument more then once.
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    > Suggesting making a new kernel is just total FUD. This is a multi decade project. Linux started as a hobby project of a single student and just a few years later it was already possible to build a full-blown UNIX desktop system with Linux as kernel. Why should that not be possible to replicate today? Especially with modern development tooling and a big and motivated language community?
    - pif 2y ago
      > Why should that not be possible to replicate today? What is missing is the user base! When Linus started his project, many people knew Unix in their professional life and were disappointed with what the market (M$) was proposing for the personal computer world. Today, no such multitude is waiting for the next Linux. Linux may not be perfect, but it's definitely good enough.
      - flohofwoe 2y ago
        Ideally such a Rust kernel project would implement a drop-in-replacement for the Linux kernel, so that Linux distros could select between the original Linux kernel and the Rust 'imposter'. That way the users would already be there. It would just be a detail like GNOME vs KDE, X11 vs Wayland, or glibc vs MUSL.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      What was acceptable in 1995 is not what is acceptable today. Linux took literal decades + in the billions of dollars to build. It's ridiculous to suggest a rust project can just catch up to that with a few developers and no funding in any sane timespan. If you think it's reasonable to suggest "Just outcompete this heavily and continuously developed 34 year old project which has the backing of the largest technology firms on earth" I really don't know what to tell you. We live in different realities. That doesn't even begin to touch on the problem that linux came at just the right time.
      - flohofwoe 2y ago
pif 2y ago
> The mental safe space of old time kernel developers? As long as they are the majority of the kernel developers, their wish is what matters the most.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Not users? Linux development is it's own reward?
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    Users should only need to care about what happens in user space. And the most important promise of Linux is "don't break user space". The kernel's programming language is literally just an internal implementation detail, irrelevant for Linux users.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Ah, I see the distinction. Thanks!
    - jimberlage 2y ago
      The security vulnerabilities that affect my PII kinda contradict the idea that the kernel is an implementation detail. It’s not an implementation detail if I do, in fact, have to care about it.
- speed_spread 2y ago
  The wish of the lead developer is for Linux development to continue beyond the life of the current maintainers. Training to be a competent system programmer using C is unnecessary long and painful. There aren't enough C hackers coming up anymore. The Rust learning curve is a bit sharper than C for the first weeks but gets you to a competent and non-dangerous state much more quickly after that. This problem is not expected to be solved by current maintainers. They're just asked to make room for the next generation. "It should hurt you like it hurt me" is not an acceptable response.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

It is never good news that "nontechnical nonsense" causes a major maintainer to step down, regardless of Rust or not-Rust.

pif 2y ago
What was heard in the video was both technical and sensible.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  The argument was "I don't want to learn Rust, I'm not going to learn Rust, and if you put a non-C language in the codebase, I'm going to break it without giving a shit". Not sensible in the least.
  - pif 2y ago
    I heard more like: "We have been borking like this for 26 years now and the result is amazing. If you want to introduce a new API for a couple of eventual use cases, you are welcome to do so, but don't event think to impose any additional burden on us."
- trissi1996 2y ago
  Did we see the same video ? The rust guys were just asking for semantic information about the current C apis so they could try to encode them into the type system. All they got in response to that were made up problems of them supposedly forcing everyone to adopt their religion, rust being too OOP or other nitpicks that had nothing to do with the issue the presenters were trying to talk about. Nobody even answered their questions, people which obviously didn't even look at rust for more than an hour gave their opinion on why what they're doing is bad and destined to fail. It was rude, tone-deaf and not a single technically sound argument was actually made. I love linux and I'm fine with the maintainers deciding to use C if they want to, but the behavior by the old guard here was actually appalling and reeks of deep insecurity and inability to communicate.
  - 2y ago