4 ms·

I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. Building large legacy projects can

I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.

bakugo 11mo ago
> I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. It's just a roundabout way of saying "anything that isn't running Rust isn't a REAL computer". Which is pretty clearly an arrogant statement, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.
- simonask 11mo ago
  Be real for a second. People are arguing against Rust because it supports fewer target architectures than GCC. Which of the target architectures do you believe if important enough that it should decide the future development of apt?
  - bakugo 11mo ago
    I won't be real for a second, because this isn't about that. Arguing that support for certain architectures should be removed because they see very little real world use is totally valid. But it's possible to do so in a respectful way, without displaying such utter contept for anyone who might disagree.
- jvanderbot 11mo ago
  I read it as a straightforward way of saying "support for a few mostly unused architectures is all that is holding us back from adopting rust, and adopting rust is viewed as a good thing"
NetMageSCW 11mo ago
“If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain, please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or sunset the port.” If that’s not arrogant, I don’t know what is.
- jvanderbot 11mo ago
  "Arrogant" does not mean "forceful" or "assertive" or "makes me angry". This is forceful, assertive, and probably makes people angry. Does the speaker have the authority to make this happen? Because if so, this is just a mandate and it's hard to find some kind of moral failing with a change in development direction communicated clearly.
- Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
  Is it arrogant or a clear and straightforward announcement that a Decision has been made and these are the consequences? I'm not seeing any arrogance in the message myself.
- powerclue 11mo ago
  How is this arrogant? Are open source developers now responsible for ensuring every fork works with the dependencies and changes they make? This seems like a long window, given to ports to say, "we are making changes that may impact you, heads up." The options presented are, frankly, the two primary options "add the dependency or tell people you are no longer a current port".

bakugo 11mo ago

> I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. It's just a roundabout way of saying "anything that isn't running Rust isn't a REAL computer". Which is pretty clearly an arrogant statement, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.

simonask 11mo ago
Be real for a second. People are arguing against Rust because it supports fewer target architectures than GCC. Which of the target architectures do you believe if important enough that it should decide the future development of apt?
- bakugo 11mo ago
  I won't be real for a second, because this isn't about that. Arguing that support for certain architectures should be removed because they see very little real world use is totally valid. But it's possible to do so in a respectful way, without displaying such utter contept for anyone who might disagree.
jvanderbot 11mo ago
I read it as a straightforward way of saying "support for a few mostly unused architectures is all that is holding us back from adopting rust, and adopting rust is viewed as a good thing"

NetMageSCW 11mo ago

“If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain, please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or sunset the port.” If that’s not arrogant, I don’t know what is.

jvanderbot 11mo ago
"Arrogant" does not mean "forceful" or "assertive" or "makes me angry". This is forceful, assertive, and probably makes people angry. Does the speaker have the authority to make this happen? Because if so, this is just a mandate and it's hard to find some kind of moral failing with a change in development direction communicated clearly.
Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
Is it arrogant or a clear and straightforward announcement that a Decision has been made and these are the consequences? I'm not seeing any arrogance in the message myself.
powerclue 11mo ago
How is this arrogant? Are open source developers now responsible for ensuring every fork works with the dependencies and changes they make? This seems like a long window, given to ports to say, "we are making changes that may impact you, heads up." The options presented are, frankly, the two primary options "add the dependency or tell people you are no longer a current port".