4 ms·

I have always thought Linus may not like Rust or at least not Pro-Rust, and the only reason Rust is marching inside the Kernel is most of his close lieutenant a

by ksec 2y ago

I have always thought Linus may not like Rust or at least not Pro-Rust, and the only reason Rust is marching inside the Kernel is most of his close lieutenant are extremely pro rust. So there is this Rust experiment. But looking at all the recent responses it seems Rusted Linux is inevitable. He is Pro Rust.

the_duke 2y ago
I'm pretty sure there is significant pressure from corporate sponsors in the Linux foundation to make Rust happen. That includes Google, Microsoft, AWS, ...
- snailmailstare 2y ago
  I think the pressures are from everywhere all the time. There's always a risk that something picks up enough steam to replace an OS even if it is a derivative or fork of the same OS. For C++ adoption, Linus gauged correctly that it's steam is limited and even directly taunting its supporters had low risk in a project that could challenge Linux because its set of choices over time has had many foot guns, where many developers would intentionally use what any user would consider a foot gun. As long as Linus didn't step in to define strong rules for how C++ would be used there was no likely challenger over any reasonable amount of time (for Linux/C). This is not true for rust.
  - the_duke 2y ago
    The difference is that at least Google is actively deploying Rust-based Linux code in Android already. And the big Linux foundation members have more influence than is publically known.
    - snailmailstare 2y ago
      Linus was pretty clear about his views on working with vendors, etc, in his Autobiography so I'm not sure if/why there would be surprise. Solaris, Java and C/C++ conpilers were all owned by Sun. I feel that is a situation without anyone even trying to maintain whatever separation some might expect from Linus.
- ksec 2y ago
  That may actually make a little more sense.
billfruit 2y ago
But why though? What about legacy systems, which may not have a rust toolchain? What about new architectures that may come up in the future?
- lmm 2y ago
  > What about legacy systems, which may not have a rust toolchain? Linux's attitude has always been either you keep up or you get dropped - see the lack of any stable driver API and the ruthless pruning of unmaintained drivers. > What about new architectures that may come up in the future? Who's to say they won't have a Rust compiler? Who's to say they will have a C one?
  - rat87 2y ago
    Linux also cant be built by any minimal c compiler for obscure arch, it requires many gcc extensions. Its only because llvm added them that its also can be compiled with llvm
  - cwillu 2y ago
    > Linux's attitude has always been either you keep up or you get dropped Gonna need a citation on that one. Drivers are removed when they don't have users anymore, and a user piping up is enough to keep the driver in the tree: For example: > As suggested by both Greg and Jakub, let's remove the ones that look > are most likely to have no users left and also get in the way of the > wext cleanup. If anyone is still using any of these, we can revert the > driver removal individually. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231030071922.233080-1-glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de/T/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231030071922.233080-1-glaubit... Or the x32 platform removal proposal, which didn't happen against after some users showed up: > > > I'm seriously considering sending a patch to remove x32 support from > > > upstream Linux. Here are some problems with it: > > > > Apparently the main real use case is for extreme benchmarking. It's > > the only use-case where the complexity of maintaining a whole > > development environment and distro is worth it, it seems. Apparently a > > number of Spec submissions have been done with the x32 model. > > > > I'm not opposed to trying to sunset the support, but let's see who complains.. > > I'm just a single user. I do rely on it though, FWIW. > […snipped further discussion] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPmeqMrVqJm4sqVgSLqJnmaVC5iakjJ_OxGWo4eFbOCxKEx=GA@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPmeqMrVqJm4sqVgSLqJnmaVC5iakj...
dralley 2y ago
There was no reason to ever think otherwise. The experiment wouldn't have happened if he didn't want to try it and give it a certain amount of backing. He's been pretty vocal about his motivations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuEYtkOH88&t=6m07s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuEYtkOH88&t=6m07s
- Symmetry 2y ago
  He certainly didn't have any trouble keeping C++ out.
  - miohtama 2y ago
    Benefits C Vs. Rust are much more impactful than C Vs C++
    - Symmetry 2y ago
      Oh certainly. And many fewer potentially dangerous complex corner cases than C++ brings.
  - __s 2y ago
    Also in that thread is Greg KH: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2025021954-flaccid-pucker-f7d9@gregkh https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2025021954-flaccid-pu... > C++ isn't going to give us any of that any decade soon, and the C++ language committee issues seem to be pointing out that everyone better be abandoning that language as soon as possible if they wish to have any codebase that can be maintained for any length of time.
tonyhart7 2y ago
"Rusted Linux is inevitable" for a good reason because Rust is objectively good language or better compared to C (Rust is designed what to fix flaws many language has)
- smidgeon 2y ago
  The real reason being the longing for the 5 hour kernel compile of yore.
  - dc443 2y ago
    Well he DOES have a threadripper now.
    - account42 2y ago
      And I'm sure the one thread used by the rust build will be blazing fast.
marsven_422 2y ago
[dead]

by ksec 2y ago

the_duke 2y ago

I'm pretty sure there is significant pressure from corporate sponsors in the Linux foundation to make Rust happen. That includes Google, Microsoft, AWS, ...

snailmailstare 2y ago
I think the pressures are from everywhere all the time. There's always a risk that something picks up enough steam to replace an OS even if it is a derivative or fork of the same OS. For C++ adoption, Linus gauged correctly that it's steam is limited and even directly taunting its supporters had low risk in a project that could challenge Linux because its set of choices over time has had many foot guns, where many developers would intentionally use what any user would consider a foot gun. As long as Linus didn't step in to define strong rules for how C++ would be used there was no likely challenger over any reasonable amount of time (for Linux/C). This is not true for rust.
- the_duke 2y ago
  The difference is that at least Google is actively deploying Rust-based Linux code in Android already. And the big Linux foundation members have more influence than is publically known.
  - snailmailstare 2y ago
    Linus was pretty clear about his views on working with vendors, etc, in his Autobiography so I'm not sure if/why there would be surprise. Solaris, Java and C/C++ conpilers were all owned by Sun. I feel that is a situation without anyone even trying to maintain whatever separation some might expect from Linus.
ksec 2y ago
That may actually make a little more sense.

billfruit 2y ago

But why though? What about legacy systems, which may not have a rust toolchain? What about new architectures that may come up in the future?

lmm 2y ago
> What about legacy systems, which may not have a rust toolchain? Linux's attitude has always been either you keep up or you get dropped - see the lack of any stable driver API and the ruthless pruning of unmaintained drivers. > What about new architectures that may come up in the future? Who's to say they won't have a Rust compiler? Who's to say they will have a C one?
- rat87 2y ago
  Linux also cant be built by any minimal c compiler for obscure arch, it requires many gcc extensions. Its only because llvm added them that its also can be compiled with llvm
- cwillu 2y ago
  > Linux's attitude has always been either you keep up or you get dropped Gonna need a citation on that one. Drivers are removed when they don't have users anymore, and a user piping up is enough to keep the driver in the tree: For example: > As suggested by both Greg and Jakub, let's remove the ones that look > are most likely to have no users left and also get in the way of the > wext cleanup. If anyone is still using any of these, we can revert the > driver removal individually. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231030071922.233080-1-glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de/T/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231030071922.233080-1-glaubit... Or the x32 platform removal proposal, which didn't happen against after some users showed up: > > > I'm seriously considering sending a patch to remove x32 support from > > > upstream Linux. Here are some problems with it: > > > > Apparently the main real use case is for extreme benchmarking. It's > > the only use-case where the complexity of maintaining a whole > > development environment and distro is worth it, it seems. Apparently a > > number of Spec submissions have been done with the x32 model. > > > > I'm not opposed to trying to sunset the support, but let's see who complains.. > > I'm just a single user. I do rely on it though, FWIW. > […snipped further discussion] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPmeqMrVqJm4sqVgSLqJnmaVC5iakjJ_OxGWo4eFbOCxKEx=GA@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPmeqMrVqJm4sqVgSLqJnmaVC5iakj...

dralley 2y ago

There was no reason to ever think otherwise. The experiment wouldn't have happened if he didn't want to try it and give it a certain amount of backing. He's been pretty vocal about his motivations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuEYtkOH88&t=6m07s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuEYtkOH88&t=6m07s

Symmetry 2y ago
He certainly didn't have any trouble keeping C++ out.
- miohtama 2y ago
  Benefits C Vs. Rust are much more impactful than C Vs C++
  - Symmetry 2y ago
    Oh certainly. And many fewer potentially dangerous complex corner cases than C++ brings.
- __s 2y ago
  Also in that thread is Greg KH: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2025021954-flaccid-pucker-f7d9@gregkh https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2025021954-flaccid-pu... > C++ isn't going to give us any of that any decade soon, and the C++ language committee issues seem to be pointing out that everyone better be abandoning that language as soon as possible if they wish to have any codebase that can be maintained for any length of time.

tonyhart7 2y ago

"Rusted Linux is inevitable" for a good reason because Rust is objectively good language or better compared to C (Rust is designed what to fix flaws many language has)

smidgeon 2y ago
The real reason being the longing for the 5 hour kernel compile of yore.
- dc443 2y ago
  Well he DOES have a threadripper now.
  - account42 2y ago
    And I'm sure the one thread used by the rust build will be blazing fast.

marsven_422 2y ago

[dead]