3 ms·
Can you point to any outstanding, unfixable, memory safety bugs in the coreutils that justify such a rewrite? This is a cynical license issue, not a safety issu
by rshackleford1 21d ago
Can you point to any outstanding, unfixable, memory safety bugs in the coreutils that justify such a rewrite? This is a cynical license issue, not a safety issue. I think there are much more severe security risks which come from behavior divergence of replacement tooling than memory safety bugs from 40 year old widely used/tested software.
- erminpour 21d agoRusty Shackelford :D
- DeathMetal3000 19d agoThe software world is littered with memory vulnerabilities and you’re here still asking for proof? You may not like Rust and that’s fine. But don’t continue propagating the attitude that got us here in the first place.
- rshackleford1 15d agoI am talking about the coreutils, not the software world... Yes, memory saftey bugs exist, but they are not the end of the world or that difficult to fix in most cases. The coreutils have been battle tested for decades. Surely it is easier to fix new bugs that are found, memory issues or otherwise, than it is to rewrite from scratch because they "might" have memory safety bugs. It is a waste of resources to rewrite the coreutils based on some ideological allergy to this specific kind of bug. Or you can accept that it is purely a licensing issue being dressed up as a security concern.