Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with rust based uutils
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
I prefer a glibc replacement.
-
Sorry, "tee" is not part of the basic Ubuntu package. Do you want to unlock premium coreutils for the cheap price of 19.99$ p.m.?
Alternatively, upgrade your Ubuntu pro to pro-double-plus-good for 10$ p.m.What does this have to do with MIT licensing?
-
Mint is basically Ubuntu with all of Canonical's BS removed. This definitely counts as Cononical BS, so I'd be surprised if it made its way into Mint.
Canonical making open source software that is more secure than the code it replaces and offering it for free is canonical bs? If so give me more.
-
Time for Mecha-Stallman to declare war.
It's funny since don't these core utils come from bsd meaning the new license is more like the original license than gpl is like either. So didn't gnu effectively steal the code and change the license for political reasons?
-
I fear moving away from GPL that moving to Rust seems to bring, but Rust does fix real memory issues.
So you prefer closed-source code to potentially unsafe open-source code?
Take the recent rsync vulnerabilities for example.
Already fixed, in software that's existed for years and is used by millions. But Oh no, memory issues, let's rewrite that in <language of the month>! will surely result in a better outcome.
Rust isn't language of the month unless you've been asleep for a decade.
What about the rust version is closed source?
This whole post is very disingenuous.
-
The Rust code isn’t closed source yet
FTFYWhat the fuck is wrong with your brain?
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
I'm mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that's a good thing, but if it's done because it's MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.
-
My scepticism is that this should've been done within the coreutils project, or at least very closely affiliated. This isn't an arra of the linux technical stack that we should tolerate being made distro-specific, especially when the licensing is controlled by a single organisation that famously picks and chooses its interpretation of "FOSS" to suit its profit margins.
uutils is not distro-specific.
-
uutils/Linux?
Systemd/Linux
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
On the one hand, Toybox exists. So, the non-copyleft license bs isn't new. On the other hand, toybox afaik isnt aiming to treat "deviations with GNu as bugs". Almost feels hostile-takeover-ish though I know that almost certinly isn't the idea behindbit.
If this ends in proprietization bs I'm going to throw hands.
-
System shared this topic