4 ms·

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 clarifyin

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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - pseudalopex 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        > But suggesting something is permanent and final when it expressly is not is a poor criticism. No one did this. > 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. Stop speaking as if other people know nothing of software development. GNU do not break compatibility knowingly and with no user benefit.
        11mo ago
- bitwize 11mo 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.

ottah 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  [dead]
- pseudalopex 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        > But suggesting something is permanent and final when it expressly is not is a poor criticism. No one did this. > 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. Stop speaking as if other people know nothing of software development. GNU do not break compatibility knowingly and with no user benefit.
        11mo ago
bitwize 11mo 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.