I get the feeling that it would be more feasible to build a separate kernel at this point. Its a lot of work, but adding another option to the comparatively small array of kernel options that we have might actually be a good idea -and in doing so, it word demonstrate r4l's willingness to maintain the project long-term. There's no need for this pissy behaviour, and there's no need to take the drama to social media.
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
-12 points (42.1% liked)
Linux
49836 readers
594 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Reading the whole thread seemed like a boomer crying that young people are ruin8ng stuff by adding new fangled stuff to their perfect utopian bloat.
„Why don’t you like that thing that I like!?”
it's often the people saying "don't listen to all the drama" that are making drama.
chill out. the guy has relevant concerns, and they matter deeply to him. ..and they matter deeply to us, the users of Linux. Rust in the kernel is a good step forward, but processes need to be in place not just for code, but for people who will be dealing with a new language in their formerly-c-only environment.
win hearts and minds, don't just kick the nest and blame the hornets if they sting you. recognize needs, even of those who are stubborn, and address them.
Ok, this is made to sound worse than it is. You guys really huff too much drama.
Phrasing.
A Linux maintainer wants to keep quality high. Objects to adding complexity to codebase.
Right or wrong, we want the maintainers focused on quality and maintainability.
Is rust more maintainable than C?
If you’re a C developer who doesn’t know Rust, no.
Well this code would be maintained by developers who know rust, so it sounds like a good merge to me!
Does the rust code not depend on any C code?
It's not so simple to say "it's separate" if there are still dependencies and if the rust code can be broken by C changes.
I'm not defending either position.
Looks like Paolo served you a slice of humble pie there at the end.
Please keep this kind of FUD elsewhere, thank you.
Yeah...until Christoph replied and confirmed what Hector was saying was true and not FUD. He didn't mince words, he said he did not want Rust in Linux whatsoever, only for new codebases, not existing ones like Linux.
Christoph is an engineer and has been for a long time. There are probably considerations he is making that you either cannot or are refusing to fathom. He's clearly not against rust in general, just in mixing languages in one codebase.
To be clear though, I personally don't have a horse in this race, I am speaking somewhat as an outside observer, so i gain nothing from you getting your way or Christoph his.
Stop and think without attributing malice to why someone in his position would make the statements and decisions he's making. He's not an idiot.
I didn't attribute it to malice, I said that the OP's post is correct that Christoph's stance is hardline and a complete showstopper for the R4L project. His reasoning is likely one of pragmatism, by the sounds of it, and it's reasonable, but I simply don't agree given Rust's history as a language used in a codebase historically using another language (Firefox). The success stories there are already written, the language has developed with that in mind already. He's not being ridiculous or malicious, he's just being conservative and playing it safe, but that still gets in the way.
We should be looking at his given reasons, not making assumptions based on some ineffable set of considerations that he might have.
Christof's given reason of complexity is sensible, it's also one already considered when allowing R4L in the first place; adding rust language support has been deemed worth the additional complexity.
Deemed by who though?
Either Linus or Greg K-H, likely after feedback from many others.
I sincerely hope your reply in the mailing list was satire .
I can't wait for Brodie to report on this!