4 ms·

GNU utils is battle tested, well reviewed, and STABLE. That's really what I want in an OS, stability. Rust solves only one case of security issues, but it canno

by ottah 10mo ago

GNU utils is battle tested, well reviewed, and STABLE. That's really what I want in an OS, stability. Rust solves only one case of security issues, but it cannot solve logical errors, which there will be many of in a new software project. I just don't see what's to gain, to suffer through years of instability, waiting for a userspace suite to mature, and reach feature parity, when we have a well understood, and safe tool set know. Maybe in five years, when coreutils is complete, I'd be okay with Ubuntu replacing user land with it. But we're not there, and it's a problem we shouldn't have to tolerate. Also I can't stand we're leaving GPL code behind for MIT.

steveklabnik 10mo ago
Luckily, the existence of uutils doesn’t change the fact that GNU coreutils exists. In fact, it’s helped improve the stability of the GNU coreutils by clarifying intended behavior and adding test cases. So if you prefer them, you should stick to them. Nobody is taking anything from you.
- ottah 10mo ago
  So I guess to properly clarify, I absolutely do not mind that someone wants to build coreutils in Rust. I don't have a problem with Rust Coreutils existing. The problem, and the real issue I have is that this project is being used as the default in major linux distros. Eager adoption of this project, and making it the production target does take away things from me. The interface has changed, stability is affected. Correctness is now measured against this incomplete implementation first, not the known correct, and stable GNU coreutils.
  - steveklabnik 10mo ago
    That’s not what is happening. One distro is kicking the tires on using this by default. The purpose is exactly because the GNU versions are being treated as the proper versions. Divergences from them are being fixed, so that this new version follows those. You can only do that by actually trying them out, because it’s impossible for the test suite to cover every behavior.
    - hnthrow82910 10mo ago
      [dead]
    - pseudalopex 10mo ago
      > That’s not what is happening. One disto is kicking the tires on using this by default. Many people call Ubuntu flavors distributions. This includes Ubuntu developers. Ubuntu made it default. The tire kicking analogy was incorrect. > The purpose is exactly because the GNU versions are being treated as the proper versions. Divergences from them are being fixed, so that this new version follows those. You can only do that by actually trying them out, because it’s impossible for the test suite to cover every behavior. You should assume everyone understands how Ubuntu's decision would benefit this project. You should assume most Ubuntu users do not care.
      - steveklabnik 10mo ago
        It is expressly described as an experiment. Making it the default does not preclude it being an experiment. It’s how you get broad enough usage to see if it’s ready. If it isn’t by the time for LTS, then it’ll be unmade as the default. That’s what an experiment is.
        pseudalopex 10mo ago
        > It is expressly described as an experiment. Making it the default does not preclude it being an experiment. Calling something an experiment does not make it exempt from criticism. > It’s how you get broad enough usage to see if it’s ready. My understanding was it was known not 100% compatible. And what did I say you should assume? > If it isn’t by the time for LTS, then it’ll be unmade as the default. People use non LTS releases for non experimental purposes.
        steveklabnik 10mo ago
        Of course it’s not exempt from criticism. But suggesting something is permanent and final when it expressly is not is a poor criticism. All software has bugs. Plus, not every bug is in the test suite. There are open bugs in all of the software shipped by every distro. Software can be ready for use even if there are know bugs in corner cases. Regular coreutils has open bugs as well.
  - bitwize 10mo ago
    Ubuntu is using uutils experimentally in a non-LTS release. This kind of widespread testing will speed up the development process. Won't be long before it catches up and surpasses GNU coreutils. Then what? You want people to not use it? why? One of the major problems with C, which like a lot of C's issues Rust just doesn't have, is that it's getting more difficult to find young, eager programmers willing to maintain a C codebase. The hassle of C outweighs the rewards, especially when Rust exists. So, ceteris paribus, development on the Rust version will outpace the C version, and you'll get more and smarter eyes on the code base. Best to put the C code out to pasture, i.e. in maintenance mode only, with a deprecation plan in place.
josephg 10mo ago
It sounds like your beef is with Ubuntu for shipping some of this code. Not with the project for existing and fixing all the compatibility issues that you seem to care a great deal about. If you want a purely gnu userland with gpl code and strong stability guarantees, Ubuntu is almost certainly the wrong distribution for you. Plenty of Linux distributions are far more stable, and won’t replace coreutils, maybe forever. (And if this is aiming to be bug for bug compatible, they won’t ever have to.) As for the gpl, this isn’t new. there’s been bsd/mit licensed alternatives to coreutils for decades. You know, in FreeBSD and friends. It’s only aiming for 100% Linux compatibility that’s new. And I guess, shipping it in Linux. But let’s be real, the gpl v3 is a pretty toxic license. By trying so hard to preserve user freedom, it becomes a new tyranny for developers. If you build a web based startup today hosted on top of Linux, you might be in breach of the gpl. What a waste of everyone’s time. The point of opensource to me is nobody can tell me what I’m allowed to do with my computer. And that includes RMS.
- jitl 10mo ago
  well, sudo-rs had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently. So there has been some recent evidence in favor of the stability argument. I think it’s worthwhile to RiiR in general but I’ll be waiting a few more years for things to mature.
  - masklinn 10mo ago
    > well, sudo-rs had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently. So there has been some recent evidence in favor of the stability argument. it would probably be a lot stronger an argument if sudo hadn’t also had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently.
- hnthrow82910 10mo ago
  [dead]

by ottah 10mo ago

steveklabnik 10mo ago

Luckily, the existence of uutils doesn’t change the fact that GNU coreutils exists. In fact, it’s helped improve the stability of the GNU coreutils by clarifying intended behavior and adding test cases. So if you prefer them, you should stick to them. Nobody is taking anything from you.

ottah 10mo ago
So I guess to properly clarify, I absolutely do not mind that someone wants to build coreutils in Rust. I don't have a problem with Rust Coreutils existing. The problem, and the real issue I have is that this project is being used as the default in major linux distros. Eager adoption of this project, and making it the production target does take away things from me. The interface has changed, stability is affected. Correctness is now measured against this incomplete implementation first, not the known correct, and stable GNU coreutils.
- steveklabnik 10mo ago
  That’s not what is happening. One distro is kicking the tires on using this by default. The purpose is exactly because the GNU versions are being treated as the proper versions. Divergences from them are being fixed, so that this new version follows those. You can only do that by actually trying them out, because it’s impossible for the test suite to cover every behavior.
  - hnthrow82910 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - pseudalopex 10mo ago
    > That’s not what is happening. One disto is kicking the tires on using this by default. Many people call Ubuntu flavors distributions. This includes Ubuntu developers. Ubuntu made it default. The tire kicking analogy was incorrect. > The purpose is exactly because the GNU versions are being treated as the proper versions. Divergences from them are being fixed, so that this new version follows those. You can only do that by actually trying them out, because it’s impossible for the test suite to cover every behavior. You should assume everyone understands how Ubuntu's decision would benefit this project. You should assume most Ubuntu users do not care.
    - steveklabnik 10mo ago
      It is expressly described as an experiment. Making it the default does not preclude it being an experiment. It’s how you get broad enough usage to see if it’s ready. If it isn’t by the time for LTS, then it’ll be unmade as the default. That’s what an experiment is.
      - pseudalopex 10mo ago
        > It is expressly described as an experiment. Making it the default does not preclude it being an experiment. Calling something an experiment does not make it exempt from criticism. > It’s how you get broad enough usage to see if it’s ready. My understanding was it was known not 100% compatible. And what did I say you should assume? > If it isn’t by the time for LTS, then it’ll be unmade as the default. People use non LTS releases for non experimental purposes.
        steveklabnik 10mo ago
        Of course it’s not exempt from criticism. But suggesting something is permanent and final when it expressly is not is a poor criticism. All software has bugs. Plus, not every bug is in the test suite. There are open bugs in all of the software shipped by every distro. Software can be ready for use even if there are know bugs in corner cases. Regular coreutils has open bugs as well.
- bitwize 10mo ago
  Ubuntu is using uutils experimentally in a non-LTS release. This kind of widespread testing will speed up the development process. Won't be long before it catches up and surpasses GNU coreutils. Then what? You want people to not use it? why? One of the major problems with C, which like a lot of C's issues Rust just doesn't have, is that it's getting more difficult to find young, eager programmers willing to maintain a C codebase. The hassle of C outweighs the rewards, especially when Rust exists. So, ceteris paribus, development on the Rust version will outpace the C version, and you'll get more and smarter eyes on the code base. Best to put the C code out to pasture, i.e. in maintenance mode only, with a deprecation plan in place.

josephg 10mo ago

It sounds like your beef is with Ubuntu for shipping some of this code. Not with the project for existing and fixing all the compatibility issues that you seem to care a great deal about. If you want a purely gnu userland with gpl code and strong stability guarantees, Ubuntu is almost certainly the wrong distribution for you. Plenty of Linux distributions are far more stable, and won’t replace coreutils, maybe forever. (And if this is aiming to be bug for bug compatible, they won’t ever have to.) As for the gpl, this isn’t new. there’s been bsd/mit licensed alternatives to coreutils for decades. You know, in FreeBSD and friends. It’s only aiming for 100% Linux compatibility that’s new. And I guess, shipping it in Linux. But let’s be real, the gpl v3 is a pretty toxic license. By trying so hard to preserve user freedom, it becomes a new tyranny for developers. If you build a web based startup today hosted on top of Linux, you might be in breach of the gpl. What a waste of everyone’s time. The point of opensource to me is nobody can tell me what I’m allowed to do with my computer. And that includes RMS.

jitl 10mo ago
well, sudo-rs had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently. So there has been some recent evidence in favor of the stability argument. I think it’s worthwhile to RiiR in general but I’ll be waiting a few more years for things to mature.
- masklinn 10mo ago
  > well, sudo-rs had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently. So there has been some recent evidence in favor of the stability argument. it would probably be a lot stronger an argument if sudo hadn’t also had a few privilege escalation CVEs recently.
hnthrow82910 10mo ago
[dead]