5 ms·

TLDR: In response to the recent resignation of Rust-for-Linux's Wedson Almeida Filho [0] and consequent debate over the politics of Rust in the kernel, Drew DeV

by troad 2y ago

TLDR: In response to the recent resignation of Rust-for-Linux's Wedson Almeida Filho [0] and consequent debate over the politics of Rust in the kernel, Drew DeVault suggests that the Rust for Linux crowd build their own ABI-compatible Linux clone, reasoning that a clone is easier than a greenfield research OS (like the existing Redux). It's not a bad idea, imho. Rust folks love rewriting things, and are often quite good at it. It would keep both the curmudgeonly kernel Never-Rusters and the Rust evangelism brigades happy (by keeping them apart). And it's a great proving ground for Rust's claims - assuming licence compatibility, successful rewrites of individual components could be lifted by Linux down the line. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/987635/ https://lwn.net/Articles/987635/

mustache_kimono 2y ago
[flagged]
- drewdevault 2y ago
  Why would you even say something like that?
  - mustache_kimono 2y ago
    >> I am a Drew Devault hater, so buckle https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.htmlup https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job..... > Why would you even say something like that? Well -- never let it be said I wouldn't say it directly to you, and I hope after reading this you will at least understand why I feel the way I do. I said what I said above, because I find your writing deeply incurious, and what is probably worse, directed towards others who are similar incurious, in much the same way say Fox News or MSNBC is in my country. When I read your writing, I never have the sense you've ever thought critically about your opinions at all. There also seems to be only good things and bad things in your cosmology. I hope you know this isn't to denigrate you as an engineer, or you as a person. You may be a wonderful person, and you have certainly built artifacts which are useful to your users. You do also seem to be very principled and sincere in your beliefs. And it's certainly not to say I always live up to my/these aspirations! On the other hand, I think, when a software engineer expounds more broadly on software (which seems to be your only beat), they owe their readers a duty to be self-critical. For instance, as you, yourself, note: You're known for your Rust hot takes[0]. If you (or the comment readers) want me to get more particular see "Does Rust belong in the Linux kernel?"[1]. There you skip talking about memory safety to spend more than a few graphs on the "Trendiness" of Rust. An argument AFAIK that was never made by those seeking to integrate Rust into the Linux kernel. And this is where I usually get off the Devault train, because it is another shallow strawman based on vibes. Not once do you ask, as someone who is intellectually curious might: "Maybe Rust is trendy because it provides lots of interesting and useful features. Perhaps I/Drew should try this new language, then I'd have some basis for the many graphs I wrote about 'Trendiness'." Unfortunately for the reader, that never happens. Each blog post is one string of unschooled, untested assumptions tied inexorably to another string of assumptions, on and on, ad infinitum. I'll admit I've compared you to Tucker Carlson more than once because that is exactly what reading a Drew Devault blog post feels like, because yours is actually a deeply conservative breed of tech demagoguery, saying to your readers, again and again: "We already know what's right. Someone just needs to say it now and then..." Similarly, re: your latest article[0], yes, you do, in a footnote, express that you thought Ted T'so's behavior was bad. But your solutions have nothing to do with remedying the bad behavior. Your solution is -- I was right all along, it was never going to work out, this couple needs a divorce. At every turn I keep expecting you to say: "Was I right? I think so because..." but, as a regular reader, I should know better. We are on the Epistemic Closure Express. Drew's writing only knows one destination. TBC this beef doesn't just extend to your writing on Rust. Your writing on Linux packaging was what first bothered me[2]. Never once do you ask yourself questions like: Is there something wrong with the Linux model of 12 different package managers? What if a dev wants users to actually use his or her software, what should they do instead of wait? Do I really imagine distro maintainers are scouring the land looking for new software to land in their distros? Is there a software solution, perhaps a declarative language/system, which would make this easier? Your answer here is like your answer to bad behavior within Linux -- your problem isn't a problem. Because I can't tell my reader Linux has any problems? Because that would be too grey for my black/white world? [0]: https://drewdevault.com/2024/08/30/2024-08-30-Rust-in-Linux-revisited.html https://drewdevault.com/2024/08/30/2024-08-30-Rust-in-Linux-... [1]: https://drewdevault.com/2022/10/03/Does-Rust-belong-in-Linux.html https://drewdevault.com/2022/10/03/Does-Rust-belong-in-Linux... [2]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job....
    - iknowstuff 2y ago
      slay
    - jmercan 2y ago
      No matter the situation, no good can come from hatred. The RfL situation has already come from anger and bad, derailed arguments. Instead of having beef with a stranger online and comparing him to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) I think having a good faith reply to a good faith personal opinion will at worst do nothing and maybe result in something at best. Focus your hatred to the injustice of the world instead. edit: pronoun fix
      - mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > No matter the situation, no good can come from hatred. Appreciate this POV, probably ascribe to it. Suppose my "hate" for Drew is mostly re: his public persona. I "hate" Drew like I hate teams that play in the same division as my team, which is to say it that hate is lightly held. So, yes, "hate" is probably too strong a term. > Instead of having beef with a stranger online and comparing them to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) I would disagree with this notion. In many ways, Drew is a demagogue and a populist and a (tech) conservative. I am (tech) conservative in some/many ways too. But this disagreement isn't about our politics. > I think having a good faith reply to a good faith personal opinion will at worst do nothing and maybe result in something at best Agreed. But the problem I have with Drew don't extend to his good faith opinions. What bothers me is the incurious way in which he chooses to express himself, not what he believes. Which I suppose it would be fine if he had a smaller audience, but he seems to want a broader relevance. I really do believe that 100 more and then 100 more people who express themselves in a similar way would be bad for any community.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - anonfordays 2y ago
        >and comparing him to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) When I read your reaction to being compared to one of the most influential conservative political commentators, I had an inkling that you were missing the forest for the trees. Twas such an egregious transgression that you were compelled to virtue signal about how "very much not okay" that is, then attempt to gaslight people with scary terms like "alt-right" (nowhere in his Wikipedia is he listed as alt-right). This is a common pattern I see from a certain segment of the population with a high propensity to have pronouns in their profile. As an experiment I click on your profile, and, well...
- stonogo 2y ago
  > First, there is no reason why we have to choose between Rust in the Linux kernel and a new Rust kernel. First, we may have to choose between those things because Rust in the Linux kernel is not gaining traction and major contributors are dropping out rather than seeing it through. It's valid to speculate about alternatives. Second, software development is not a zero-sum game and such a rewrite can exist in concert with Rust-for-Linux (and even benefit from it). Drew is not handing out orders here anyway. > Second, this would perpetuate toxic LKML behavior. I'd suggest maybe this bad behavior should be dealt with. You've used the passive voice here, and the probable reason for that is that there is nobody who is or will ever be responsible for dealing with LKML's shitty "culture." It's a cesspool at every level and will continue to be so until everyone currently in a leadership position is gone. In addition, the problem here is not technical. Rust is a solution to some technical problems, but technical decisions in a mature group effort are secondary to what Filho referred to as "nontechnical nonsense." That nonsense is the single most important aspect of the project, and too many of the Rust-for-Linux proponents don't seem to understand that. Without developer buy-in, none of your advanced futuristic solutions are even going to make it in the door. The fact that many of the developers whose buy-in you need are assholes is not grounds to reject the work. It simply makes the work less pleasant. Linux moves forward because the people who build it are moving in the same direction. If you want that direction to change, you have to convince a majority of the actors. You're not going to do that by telling them the tools they've used for decades are bad and wrong and the answer is this other shit you happen to be good at. People keep making this assumption that Rust-for-Linux is hindered by technology considerations, but that was never the case. It is and always has been a sales pitch, and the Rust-for-Linux people have completely fumbled the ball at almost every stage. There is a great example in Filho's linked video where he's showing get_or_create_inode and the C devs (poorly and abrasively) try to explain that this design means to implement special cases you have to go fucking around in the type system instead of just branching differently in the call site where the other logic is. Filho gets frustrated because he can't seem to understand that using types this way is not intuitive for many people, and the C people get frustrated because Filho's answers don't account for their objections at all. There's another great example in this very thread where you declare that "the Rust devs showed an better/easier way." They, arguably, did not, if you're not a Rust dev. To someone who isn't accustomed to idiomatic Rust, it seems completely insane to have to go digging around in the type system in order to enable magic elsewhere in the call stack, when you can just tell the computer what to do. Nobody at any point is trying to demonstrate why the Rust approach is superior -- a position I happen to agree with, for the record -- and instead just bemoan these stupid C toddlers who don't take the same things for granted that Rust adults do. It's pointlessly demeaning, combative, and in this case self-defeating, and it's the primary reason I think projects which use Rust ab initio succeed more than these piecemeal approaches.
- mcdow 2y ago
  I think both things can be true. The worst of the LKML are crybabies. The worst of Rustaceans are zealots. The worst of any community are usually a vocal minority. Rust for Linux can continue on their mission, and that’s noble. But conflict is to be expected between the babies and zealots, naturally. RFL is not mutually exclusive with a Rust Linux clone. Drew’s proposal seems like a perfectly reasonable parallel project to the RFL project.
  - mustache_kimono 2y ago
    > But conflict is to be expected between the babies and zealots, naturally. Let's note: that's not what happened here. A baby didn't meet a zealot. Here, a baby just lost it. > Drew’s proposal seems like a perfectly reasonable parallel project to the RFL project. I agree a Linux compatible Rust OS is perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure it's a reasonable alternative. One contributor leaves because of technical nontechnical nonsense, so let's call the whole thing off? Rust was being included for a technical reason. Is this technical reason less true? Can Linux do without memory safety?
    - snvzz 2y ago
      Throughout your posts, I notice a recurrent theme of false equivalence between "rust" and "memory safety". Rust is merely a tool; a language that makes memory safety easier. It is not required for memory safety, nor does it, by itself, guarantee memory safety. This is particularly true in supervisor mode, with hardware other than the CPU itself within reach.
      - mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > Throughout your posts, I notice a recurrent theme of false equivalence between "rust" and "memory safety". I'm glad you were able to reason through it. > Rust is merely a tool; a language that makes memory safety easier. I suppose, if I overstated the effect Rust might have on memory safety, you risk understating it here. > It is not required for memory safety, nor does it, by itself, guarantee memory safety. No, but it does an incredible job? This reminds me of a post, on this site, I saw which said something to the effect of "ZFS is only great because it is the only filesystem in its domain" which is ridiculous on it's face, but I think even more ridiculous as you dig a little deeper. When someone who keeps shooting themselves in the foot says, "That safety doesn't prevent all the ways you can kill yourself". Sometimes you want to scream to that fool who manages to continue to avoid using the safety: "What more do you want?" > This is particularly true in supervisor mode, with hardware other than the CPU itself within reach. Of course, I'd agree to some extent, but I think your framing is again perhaps overly narrow. Rust is a really good tool. It's such a good tool I hear they are trying to write drivers with it in the Linux kernel.
- Rochus 2y ago
  > I am a Drew Devault hater, so buckle up. With this sentence you have completely disqualified yourself, regardless of what else - if anything at all - you might have to say.
  - mustache_kimono 2y ago
    Perhaps you should see why below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41404644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41404644
    - Rochus 2y ago
      There is no excuse for such statements by an adult person.

by troad 2y ago

mustache_kimono 2y ago

[flagged]

drewdevault 2y ago
Why would you even say something like that?
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  >> I am a Drew Devault hater, so buckle https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.htmlup https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job..... > Why would you even say something like that? Well -- never let it be said I wouldn't say it directly to you, and I hope after reading this you will at least understand why I feel the way I do. I said what I said above, because I find your writing deeply incurious, and what is probably worse, directed towards others who are similar incurious, in much the same way say Fox News or MSNBC is in my country. When I read your writing, I never have the sense you've ever thought critically about your opinions at all. There also seems to be only good things and bad things in your cosmology. I hope you know this isn't to denigrate you as an engineer, or you as a person. You may be a wonderful person, and you have certainly built artifacts which are useful to your users. You do also seem to be very principled and sincere in your beliefs. And it's certainly not to say I always live up to my/these aspirations! On the other hand, I think, when a software engineer expounds more broadly on software (which seems to be your only beat), they owe their readers a duty to be self-critical. For instance, as you, yourself, note: You're known for your Rust hot takes[0]. If you (or the comment readers) want me to get more particular see "Does Rust belong in the Linux kernel?"[1]. There you skip talking about memory safety to spend more than a few graphs on the "Trendiness" of Rust. An argument AFAIK that was never made by those seeking to integrate Rust into the Linux kernel. And this is where I usually get off the Devault train, because it is another shallow strawman based on vibes. Not once do you ask, as someone who is intellectually curious might: "Maybe Rust is trendy because it provides lots of interesting and useful features. Perhaps I/Drew should try this new language, then I'd have some basis for the many graphs I wrote about 'Trendiness'." Unfortunately for the reader, that never happens. Each blog post is one string of unschooled, untested assumptions tied inexorably to another string of assumptions, on and on, ad infinitum. I'll admit I've compared you to Tucker Carlson more than once because that is exactly what reading a Drew Devault blog post feels like, because yours is actually a deeply conservative breed of tech demagoguery, saying to your readers, again and again: "We already know what's right. Someone just needs to say it now and then..." Similarly, re: your latest article[0], yes, you do, in a footnote, express that you thought Ted T'so's behavior was bad. But your solutions have nothing to do with remedying the bad behavior. Your solution is -- I was right all along, it was never going to work out, this couple needs a divorce. At every turn I keep expecting you to say: "Was I right? I think so because..." but, as a regular reader, I should know better. We are on the Epistemic Closure Express. Drew's writing only knows one destination. TBC this beef doesn't just extend to your writing on Rust. Your writing on Linux packaging was what first bothered me[2]. Never once do you ask yourself questions like: Is there something wrong with the Linux model of 12 different package managers? What if a dev wants users to actually use his or her software, what should they do instead of wait? Do I really imagine distro maintainers are scouring the land looking for new software to land in their distros? Is there a software solution, perhaps a declarative language/system, which would make this easier? Your answer here is like your answer to bad behavior within Linux -- your problem isn't a problem. Because I can't tell my reader Linux has any problems? Because that would be too grey for my black/white world? [0]: https://drewdevault.com/2024/08/30/2024-08-30-Rust-in-Linux-revisited.html https://drewdevault.com/2024/08/30/2024-08-30-Rust-in-Linux-... [1]: https://drewdevault.com/2022/10/03/Does-Rust-belong-in-Linux.html https://drewdevault.com/2022/10/03/Does-Rust-belong-in-Linux... [2]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job....
  - iknowstuff 2y ago
    slay
  - jmercan 2y ago
    No matter the situation, no good can come from hatred. The RfL situation has already come from anger and bad, derailed arguments. Instead of having beef with a stranger online and comparing him to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) I think having a good faith reply to a good faith personal opinion will at worst do nothing and maybe result in something at best. Focus your hatred to the injustice of the world instead. edit: pronoun fix
    - mustache_kimono 2y ago
      > No matter the situation, no good can come from hatred. Appreciate this POV, probably ascribe to it. Suppose my "hate" for Drew is mostly re: his public persona. I "hate" Drew like I hate teams that play in the same division as my team, which is to say it that hate is lightly held. So, yes, "hate" is probably too strong a term. > Instead of having beef with a stranger online and comparing them to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) I would disagree with this notion. In many ways, Drew is a demagogue and a populist and a (tech) conservative. I am (tech) conservative in some/many ways too. But this disagreement isn't about our politics. > I think having a good faith reply to a good faith personal opinion will at worst do nothing and maybe result in something at best Agreed. But the problem I have with Drew don't extend to his good faith opinions. What bothers me is the incurious way in which he chooses to express himself, not what he believes. Which I suppose it would be fine if he had a smaller audience, but he seems to want a broader relevance. I really do believe that 100 more and then 100 more people who express themselves in a similar way would be bad for any community.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      >and comparing him to an alt-right figure (which is very much not okay) When I read your reaction to being compared to one of the most influential conservative political commentators, I had an inkling that you were missing the forest for the trees. Twas such an egregious transgression that you were compelled to virtue signal about how "very much not okay" that is, then attempt to gaslight people with scary terms like "alt-right" (nowhere in his Wikipedia is he listed as alt-right). This is a common pattern I see from a certain segment of the population with a high propensity to have pronouns in their profile. As an experiment I click on your profile, and, well...
stonogo 2y ago
> First, there is no reason why we have to choose between Rust in the Linux kernel and a new Rust kernel. First, we may have to choose between those things because Rust in the Linux kernel is not gaining traction and major contributors are dropping out rather than seeing it through. It's valid to speculate about alternatives. Second, software development is not a zero-sum game and such a rewrite can exist in concert with Rust-for-Linux (and even benefit from it). Drew is not handing out orders here anyway. > Second, this would perpetuate toxic LKML behavior. I'd suggest maybe this bad behavior should be dealt with. You've used the passive voice here, and the probable reason for that is that there is nobody who is or will ever be responsible for dealing with LKML's shitty "culture." It's a cesspool at every level and will continue to be so until everyone currently in a leadership position is gone. In addition, the problem here is not technical. Rust is a solution to some technical problems, but technical decisions in a mature group effort are secondary to what Filho referred to as "nontechnical nonsense." That nonsense is the single most important aspect of the project, and too many of the Rust-for-Linux proponents don't seem to understand that. Without developer buy-in, none of your advanced futuristic solutions are even going to make it in the door. The fact that many of the developers whose buy-in you need are assholes is not grounds to reject the work. It simply makes the work less pleasant. Linux moves forward because the people who build it are moving in the same direction. If you want that direction to change, you have to convince a majority of the actors. You're not going to do that by telling them the tools they've used for decades are bad and wrong and the answer is this other shit you happen to be good at. People keep making this assumption that Rust-for-Linux is hindered by technology considerations, but that was never the case. It is and always has been a sales pitch, and the Rust-for-Linux people have completely fumbled the ball at almost every stage. There is a great example in Filho's linked video where he's showing get_or_create_inode and the C devs (poorly and abrasively) try to explain that this design means to implement special cases you have to go fucking around in the type system instead of just branching differently in the call site where the other logic is. Filho gets frustrated because he can't seem to understand that using types this way is not intuitive for many people, and the C people get frustrated because Filho's answers don't account for their objections at all. There's another great example in this very thread where you declare that "the Rust devs showed an better/easier way." They, arguably, did not, if you're not a Rust dev. To someone who isn't accustomed to idiomatic Rust, it seems completely insane to have to go digging around in the type system in order to enable magic elsewhere in the call stack, when you can just tell the computer what to do. Nobody at any point is trying to demonstrate why the Rust approach is superior -- a position I happen to agree with, for the record -- and instead just bemoan these stupid C toddlers who don't take the same things for granted that Rust adults do. It's pointlessly demeaning, combative, and in this case self-defeating, and it's the primary reason I think projects which use Rust ab initio succeed more than these piecemeal approaches.
mcdow 2y ago
I think both things can be true. The worst of the LKML are crybabies. The worst of Rustaceans are zealots. The worst of any community are usually a vocal minority. Rust for Linux can continue on their mission, and that’s noble. But conflict is to be expected between the babies and zealots, naturally. RFL is not mutually exclusive with a Rust Linux clone. Drew’s proposal seems like a perfectly reasonable parallel project to the RFL project.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  > But conflict is to be expected between the babies and zealots, naturally. Let's note: that's not what happened here. A baby didn't meet a zealot. Here, a baby just lost it. > Drew’s proposal seems like a perfectly reasonable parallel project to the RFL project. I agree a Linux compatible Rust OS is perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure it's a reasonable alternative. One contributor leaves because of technical nontechnical nonsense, so let's call the whole thing off? Rust was being included for a technical reason. Is this technical reason less true? Can Linux do without memory safety?
  - snvzz 2y ago
    Throughout your posts, I notice a recurrent theme of false equivalence between "rust" and "memory safety". Rust is merely a tool; a language that makes memory safety easier. It is not required for memory safety, nor does it, by itself, guarantee memory safety. This is particularly true in supervisor mode, with hardware other than the CPU itself within reach.
    - mustache_kimono 2y ago
      > Throughout your posts, I notice a recurrent theme of false equivalence between "rust" and "memory safety". I'm glad you were able to reason through it. > Rust is merely a tool; a language that makes memory safety easier. I suppose, if I overstated the effect Rust might have on memory safety, you risk understating it here. > It is not required for memory safety, nor does it, by itself, guarantee memory safety. No, but it does an incredible job? This reminds me of a post, on this site, I saw which said something to the effect of "ZFS is only great because it is the only filesystem in its domain" which is ridiculous on it's face, but I think even more ridiculous as you dig a little deeper. When someone who keeps shooting themselves in the foot says, "That safety doesn't prevent all the ways you can kill yourself". Sometimes you want to scream to that fool who manages to continue to avoid using the safety: "What more do you want?" > This is particularly true in supervisor mode, with hardware other than the CPU itself within reach. Of course, I'd agree to some extent, but I think your framing is again perhaps overly narrow. Rust is a really good tool. It's such a good tool I hear they are trying to write drivers with it in the Linux kernel.
Rochus 2y ago
> I am a Drew Devault hater, so buckle up. With this sentence you have completely disqualified yourself, regardless of what else - if anything at all - you might have to say.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  Perhaps you should see why below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41404644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41404644
  - Rochus 2y ago
    There is no excuse for such statements by an adult person.