4 ms·

> Getting smart young people to contribute to Linux Distros (and BSD for that matter) to me is a tough job. I mean, they came with enthusiasm and a lot of hard

by shakow 2y ago

> Getting smart young people to contribute to Linux Distros (and BSD for that matter) to me is a tough job. I mean, they came with enthusiasm and a lot of hard work, brought a new language with many advantages (as said by the BDFL humself), dusted off the whole GPU stack, tried to formalize a bit the FS systems, then got shunned out by the greybeards because “muh youngsters and their religion”.

arp242 2y ago
That's not really a fair representation of the argument, and the stereotyping of everyone who disagrees or expresses some caution as an old stubborn greybeard who refuses to learn anything new is exactly the thing people (rightfully) complain about.
- shakow 2y ago
  Please feel free to develop what you perceive as being a fair representation of the situation. > or expresses some caution Bellowing about religions while monopolizing a talk Q&A is not “expressing some caution”.
  - arp242 2y ago
    I'm not going to spend half an hour (or more) doing a full detailed write-up in response to a lazy assertion, especially since your attitude does not resemble that of a person with genuine interest in understanding other people's viewpoints. Stereotyping an entire viewpoint as you did in your previous comment is pretty much always wrong. I might be a bit more forgiving if it has included some context or details, but it doesn't. Your post is little more than an insult. I will add that people having been choking each other over all sorts of technical stuff for as long as this "free software" thing has existed, because there are usually 20 ways to do anything and typically between 2 and 10 ways are reasonable. This is really nothing new and discussions surrounding Rust are really not that special.
  - NobodyNada 2y ago
    The full quote: > You're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by Rust, and the reality is that ain't gonna happen because we have 50+ filesystems in Linux. They will not all be instantaneously converted over to Rust. Before that happens, we will continue to refactor C code because we want to make the C code better. If it breaks the Rust bindings, at least for the foreseeable future, the Rust bindings are a second class citizen, and those filesystem that depend on the Rust bindings will break, and that is the Rust bindings problem, not the filesystem community at large problem, and that's going to be true for a long long time. And I think we just simply need to accept that, because the answer "you are not allowed to refactor the C code because it would break 5 critical filesystem that distros depend upon" is not a starter. So we'll see; I suspect the best thing to do is for you to continue maintaining your Rust bindings. Over time, there will be continued C code refactoring -- maybe we will start using kfree RCU. If that breaks Rust, we will find out whether this concepts of encoding huge amount of semantics into the type system is a good thing or a bad thing, and instead of trying to convince us to what is actually correct, let's see what happens in a year or two. And it will either work or it won't, and we will see, more likely, where does the pain get allocated. Because with most of these sort of engineering things it's almost always a pain allocation question. > [...] > You're not going to force all of us to learn Rust -- if I make a change, I will fix all of the C code, because that's my responsibility. Because I don't know Rust, I'm not going to fix the Rust bindings. Some of his language is more emotionally charged than was productive, sure, but I think his underlying concern is reasonable: most kernel maintainers don't know Rust, and so when they make changes to C code, they won't be able to fix Rust clients of that C code. The Rust maintainers accept this, and agree to take responsibility for updating Rust code to match changes in C (which is contrary to the usual development workflow of the kernel, hence the concern over what happens if major distros start depending on Rust code). Note also that Ts'o isn't objecting to including Rust in the kernel! His recommendation is to ship the Rust bindings and see "where the pain gets allocated" as the C code continues to evolve. (The idea being that either Rust's type system and borrow checker will make it easy to identify semantic breakages early, thus making Rust code lower-maintenance than C, or the Rust bindings will turn out to be fragile and high-maintenance, and that the best way to tell is by waiting to see). I'm not a part of the Linux kernel community at all, and I certainly don't know all the context that led to Almeida leaving the project -- I imagine Ts'o's comments were a "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of thing. But the Linux kernel is a complex project and critical infrastructure, so surely concerns about organization and maintainability need to be hashed out before Rust can make it to production. Also, Ts'o's comments struck me as some of the most reasonable out of that talk, at least from a technical perspective -- the next commenter after Ts'o objects to Rust in the kernel on the basis that its function call syntax reminds him of Java.
renewiltord 2y ago
Rust on Linux will happen. One way or another. At the worst, one funeral at a time. I wouldn’t sweat it. I remember a HN comment that I really liked and can’t find now that went something like: You know what stopped me from programming? It wasn’t that I didn’t have a good computer. It wasn’t that I started later than all the other kids. It wasn’t that I had to work. Nothing. Nothing stopped me from programming. There’ll always be folks like that. And I hope I’ll be like that for some thing too!
mustache_kimono 2y ago
It's a shit take, but I like it. Upvote this guy.

by shakow 2y ago

arp242 2y ago

That's not really a fair representation of the argument, and the stereotyping of everyone who disagrees or expresses some caution as an old stubborn greybeard who refuses to learn anything new is exactly the thing people (rightfully) complain about.

shakow 2y ago
Please feel free to develop what you perceive as being a fair representation of the situation. > or expresses some caution Bellowing about religions while monopolizing a talk Q&A is not “expressing some caution”.
- arp242 2y ago
  I'm not going to spend half an hour (or more) doing a full detailed write-up in response to a lazy assertion, especially since your attitude does not resemble that of a person with genuine interest in understanding other people's viewpoints. Stereotyping an entire viewpoint as you did in your previous comment is pretty much always wrong. I might be a bit more forgiving if it has included some context or details, but it doesn't. Your post is little more than an insult. I will add that people having been choking each other over all sorts of technical stuff for as long as this "free software" thing has existed, because there are usually 20 ways to do anything and typically between 2 and 10 ways are reasonable. This is really nothing new and discussions surrounding Rust are really not that special.
- NobodyNada 2y ago
  The full quote: > You're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by Rust, and the reality is that ain't gonna happen because we have 50+ filesystems in Linux. They will not all be instantaneously converted over to Rust. Before that happens, we will continue to refactor C code because we want to make the C code better. If it breaks the Rust bindings, at least for the foreseeable future, the Rust bindings are a second class citizen, and those filesystem that depend on the Rust bindings will break, and that is the Rust bindings problem, not the filesystem community at large problem, and that's going to be true for a long long time. And I think we just simply need to accept that, because the answer "you are not allowed to refactor the C code because it would break 5 critical filesystem that distros depend upon" is not a starter. So we'll see; I suspect the best thing to do is for you to continue maintaining your Rust bindings. Over time, there will be continued C code refactoring -- maybe we will start using kfree RCU. If that breaks Rust, we will find out whether this concepts of encoding huge amount of semantics into the type system is a good thing or a bad thing, and instead of trying to convince us to what is actually correct, let's see what happens in a year or two. And it will either work or it won't, and we will see, more likely, where does the pain get allocated. Because with most of these sort of engineering things it's almost always a pain allocation question. > [...] > You're not going to force all of us to learn Rust -- if I make a change, I will fix all of the C code, because that's my responsibility. Because I don't know Rust, I'm not going to fix the Rust bindings. Some of his language is more emotionally charged than was productive, sure, but I think his underlying concern is reasonable: most kernel maintainers don't know Rust, and so when they make changes to C code, they won't be able to fix Rust clients of that C code. The Rust maintainers accept this, and agree to take responsibility for updating Rust code to match changes in C (which is contrary to the usual development workflow of the kernel, hence the concern over what happens if major distros start depending on Rust code). Note also that Ts'o isn't objecting to including Rust in the kernel! His recommendation is to ship the Rust bindings and see "where the pain gets allocated" as the C code continues to evolve. (The idea being that either Rust's type system and borrow checker will make it easy to identify semantic breakages early, thus making Rust code lower-maintenance than C, or the Rust bindings will turn out to be fragile and high-maintenance, and that the best way to tell is by waiting to see). I'm not a part of the Linux kernel community at all, and I certainly don't know all the context that led to Almeida leaving the project -- I imagine Ts'o's comments were a "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of thing. But the Linux kernel is a complex project and critical infrastructure, so surely concerns about organization and maintainability need to be hashed out before Rust can make it to production. Also, Ts'o's comments struck me as some of the most reasonable out of that talk, at least from a technical perspective -- the next commenter after Ts'o objects to Rust in the kernel on the basis that its function call syntax reminds him of Java.

renewiltord 2y ago

Rust on Linux will happen. One way or another. At the worst, one funeral at a time. I wouldn’t sweat it. I remember a HN comment that I really liked and can’t find now that went something like: You know what stopped me from programming? It wasn’t that I didn’t have a good computer. It wasn’t that I started later than all the other kids. It wasn’t that I had to work. Nothing. Nothing stopped me from programming. There’ll always be folks like that. And I hope I’ll be like that for some thing too!

mustache_kimono 2y ago

It's a shit take, but I like it. Upvote this guy.