- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Honestly I kinda wish the Rust devs would rather go and support a project like Redox OS and then maybe we can have less drama about all this.
FTA: "However, I will say that the social media brigading just makes me not want to have anything at all to do with your approach.
"Because if we have issues in the kernel development model, then social media sure as hell isn’t the solution. The same way it sure as hell wasn’t the solution to politics.
“Technical patches and discussions matter. Social media brigading - no thank you.” -Linus
Yeah, I have to issue an unqualified agreement here. Linus isn’t saying no to Rust, he’s smackin’ that ass for bringing drama out into social media instead of working through it in normal technical discussion channels.
It sounds like he tried that, and nobody with authority responded until he went outside the list. Even now, Linus hasn’t actually answered the question of whether more rust code should be allowed.
Sure, I saw that, too. This is Linus saying he won’t play that.
So he won’t answer on-list. He won’t respond to off-list. I don’t blame marcan for getting frustrated.
Yeah, I don’t blame him for being frustrated. I definitely empathize with him here. I don’t know about the culture around committing to the kernal, but maybe it would be better to fork and make the case with action?
Forking the Linux kernel is unlikely to go anywhere.
There is Redox, a Unix-like whole OS implemented in Rust, though I don’t know if being able to run unmodified Linux binaries is one of their goals. It looks like they’re expecting most software to be ported.
I don’t know how “whether more rust code should be allowed” is even a question. What, do you think they’re going to just cut all the rust developers off or something? Linus has always been a move slow and don’t break things kinda guy. Why should allowing rust into the kernel suddenly change that now? What is there to even answer?
Well, the rust devs are trying to add more rust code, and the dma maintainer rejected it because it was was written in rust. Thus, the question.
The dma maintainer wants all the code he’s in charge of to be stuff he likes to work with. Whether you agree with that or not, that has absolutely nothing to do with Linus Torvalds allowing more rust code in the kernel.
That’s the thing though, he’s not in charge of this code.
The lone dma maintainer isn’t in charge of the code in the dma subsystem? What do you even mean by that?
He’s not in charge of the rust code they want to merge. They asked him about it because their code talks with the dma system.
No offense, but reading through the comments it’s apparent you’re not very familiar with systems programming nor linux development. This is a common problem with vocal ‘rustaceans’, rust is their hammer regardless of the domain.
Although considering rust is prudent, there are still a ton of advantages to using C for systems programming. It is not a binary choice, there are pros and cons, and every project should choose what aligns with their priorities.
No one has ever stated that linux will be in the kernel. It was ‘go ahead and give it a shot’, which includes convincing maintainers to accept your patches. Linus has delegated trust to subsystems maintainers and an established process.
Hellwig could have been more tactful, but like it or not, arguments against a cross-language codebase have merit. Framing it as a ‘clear confession of sabotage of the r4l project’, attempting to weaponize the CoC, and trying to drum up an army via social media was all out of line.
Success was never a given, if they want r4l to succeed then they have to get patches approved and crying wolf ain’t gonna cut it.
Isn’t on of the issues on why they wanted rust is a lack of new blood in the kernel development?
linux is amazing. i dunno what rust is, but ive been using linux a long time. i appreciate the modern comfort. but whatever happens happens. itll still be good.
If code doesn’t change quickly enough, it rusts. Linus makes sure that doesn’t happen
Shut up Mauro
he looks like some kind of dino, i cant figure out which one
I’m relatively new to Linux and the FOSS scene, but I’m not sure how I feel about the unquestioning devotion to a single person. It seems antithetical to the entire philosophy.
Even if he was maybe right this time…
The dude did a complete 180 as soon as they heard from Linus, like daddy made his decision, and it’s final, or some shit…
Edit: To be clear, I understand why developers respect and listen to Linus… I just think there are fundamental issues with this kind of top-down management of such a colossal project, and the desire to defer to one person seems antithetical to the FOSS philosophy.
It’s not unfounded and I don’t know of a time when Linus wasn’t right in the end. But I wouldn’t say it’s blind devotion he would be turned on in a second he betrayed his principles. Also FOSS is not about lack of ownership its about sharing code for the greater good. Every owner of a project knows that a project can be forked in an instant.
It’s not devotion, people can fork the Linux kernel if they want. He’s just the one in charge of the mainstream kernel
The BDFL model, as it’s called, is what allows large projects to continue to have focused vision rather than devolving into design-by-committee. The kernel is actually already well beyond pure BDFL, but my point is having a single point of overall leadership can be a huge boon for the organization of large and complex projects. FOSS philosophy has literally nothing to do with management structure; it’s entirely about the rights of the end user.
BDFL is not without its own risks. WordPress is a good counterexample these days. But, when someone originates a project and sticks around to steer it, it would be silly to reject their proven successful leadership for such a vague reason as you have presented.
When things do go sideways, people are free to fork the project. That is what FOSS is.
Its not antithetical to the Foss philosophy. Thus happens because Linus is a trusted figure, something he’s absolutely earned. He didn’t just buy control of some product, or get promoted to this position by a company. Many great open source projects have a BDFL. If people lose their trust in the projects BDFL, they fork the project.
Also, the kernel is really just one part of Linux. Distros include a whole bunch of software they choose to deliver a full OS (hence the Gnu+Linux people). Linus doesn’t have control over the OS as a whole, just the kernel.
Edit: Just finished reading the chain, what do you mean the dude did a 180? He expressed frustration that Linux only criticized him, further criticized the issues with the kernel development process, and said he was giving up being part of the kernel.
Idk what bdfl stands for, but the first thought was big daddy fuck lord
Benevolent dictator for life.
Benevolent dictator for life, but honestly your interpretation gets the same message across.
If Linus genuinely went off the rails, the kernel would just get forked. Even right now, if the way the mainline project is run doesn’t work for someone or what they are doing, that can and does happen.
Linus has power because the people who contribute to the project allow it, and they allow it because over the years he has consistently endeavoured to make decisions based on what is in the best interest of the project. People want him in charge, because he has done, and keeps doing, a really good job.
He hasn’t always been nice to deal with, and he can get spicy when he puts his foot down, but whem he does, its not on a whim. And if he’s wrong, and you can articulate why and how, in good faith, he won’t ignore the logic of what you are saying out of some childish sense of pride.
Unless a major corporate sponsor of Linux forks it s fork is going no where. The amount of company work that goes into the kernel is massive.
I don’t know if it’s complete devotion, but Linus has a reputation he’s earned the difficult/hard way.
If he says something, people should take it seriously and consider his words. That’s not to say he’s right all the time, but you’d better have a damn good reason for disagreeing with him.
Also a reply so you can understand a bit how things typically work in FOSS projects.
There’s a democracy in healthy ones, but ultimately, there has to be someone at the top that has the final say. The project maintainer/main contributor. Someone who gets to be the tie breaker, or absolutely final authority on what does or doesn’t make it into a patch/version/etc.
This is extremely common, and generally healthy, in these kinds of ecosystems.
Is it healthy, or is it just the way it is? What makes it healthy?
It has worked successfully for linux for decades and other FOSS projects like Python have successfully followed the same model.
Yes, that’s just the way it is in systems that involve humans. But when that final authority refuses to make a necessary decision, what do you do?
Fork. Setting up a whole new project infrastructure, getting fellow developers on board with your putsch and everything can be a PITA but all those are natural hurdles, due to how the licensing works the BDFL has no way to stop you.
As such, as a BDFL you rule by the grace of authority of the bootmaker. If you don’t make sense, if you aren’t respected, sooner than later the community is going to leave you behind.
Poop in their bed!
It’s just respect
I don’t think it’s blind devotion - most of us would acknowledge the guy can be a bit of a dick sometimes.
But we’re also grateful. Without his silly idea in the 90s, linux wouldn’t exist. Computing today would be massively different - big, commercial, massively expensive unixes like Sco and Solaris dominating the industry. My main hobby for 20 years would be very different. My career for six years wouldn’t exist.
That Linus has stayed an actively contributing member whilst not selling out in any way at all for 34 years is… wow. Could you do it? I’m certain i couldn’t. I have neither the ethical strength nor moral compass to do it. And I’m certain if he dropped out, some of the massive egos that satellite around Linux, or the monetizing businesses would seek to take over and twist it to their needs.
And, y’know, on the matter of technical detail like this. He’s nearly always right. Seriously, look it up. He’s not polite, he’s not diplomatic, but he’s nearly always right. And when he’s not, he’ll admit it. Again, not your normal human.
So yeah, that’s why we respect him and, when he talks, we listen. Even if it’s not something we’re involved with, it’s usually an interesting ride.
Well, I certainly don’t want to minimize what Linus Torvalds has done. No one has done more for open source software than him, but if he hadn’t come along with his kernel when he did there were other options. BSD did eventually get out of the legal purgatory that Linux gave an alternative to, or heck, maybe if Linux hadn’t come along Gnu Hurd could have even been a real thing.
I’m happy with Linus being in charge of the biggest open source project in the world. I agree with him more often than not. He’s not the only reason open source operating systems exist though.
He is why they’re popular. Who knows if any of those would have gained traction. I mean Hurd is still non existence and for whatever reason BSD is a niche of a niche.
BSD was the main open source option for a little while, but got into a big legal battle that dragged out for years, and Linux came out during that time and took over. BSD never made a major comeback because no one really needed it anymore after Linux came along. It’s still around because it was already done, so people have just had to maintain and update it since then. Hurd is non-existent for reasons that are contentious, but everyone agrees that at least one of them is that a lot of people got excited about the Linux kernel and lost interest in Hurd and switched to Linux development instead. It is possible that if more people had stuck with it there would have been a real, useful Hurd instead. These aren’t even the only alternatives that were being worked on at the time.
The idea that any one person could will an entire operating system into existence by making a hobby kernel that fit a useful niche at the right time is just patently absurd. Linux is great, and Linus Torvalds is a good steward of it, but no, he is not the only reason why open source operating systems are popular.
Rust people are so annoying.
counterpoint: stonewalling c programmers are so annoying.
Rust is the future for this sort of systems programming work, and by failing to see that and accommodate its use both Linus and Hellwig are sabotaging the long term viability of the kernel imo. New devs are keen to jump on rust because of how much it does better than C/++ and how much easier it is to make safe and secure systems with it, but shit like this just demotivates that crowd and thins the pool of people who are willing to contribute going forward. We need memory safety by default, the task of kernel stability is only going to get more complex and unsustainable without it. Stop holding onto tradition and purity for the sake of it
Rust is not the only systems language with “memory safety”. Some even have better type systems (linear types, refinement types, GADTs) & tools for proving code correct. What grinds my gears is this “C is has problems, therefore you must use Rust” flawed mentality.
I agree but in terms of the features, momentum, and community around rust I think it’s the most promising option for memory safe language. But you’re right that it’s not the only option, I should say that they should be more welcoming to mixed language development with memory safe languages in general
Rust has affine types and gets close to linear when you include
#[must_use](you can stilllet _ = foobut at least it won’t be an accident, also, drop code isn’t guaranteed to run and there’s good reasons for that), refinement types there’s a library for that. GADTs… I mean sure trait magic can get annoying and coming from Haskell you’d want to do more in the type system but in the end the idiomatic rust way to do many of those things is with macros. Which, unlike Haskell, Rust actually is really good at. Really good. Tack refinement types onto the language kind of good.Proving tools, honestly, there’s only one piece of actually proven software (SeL4) and the only language it’s really written in is Coq. Which Rust will never, ever, compete with on its home turf.
- Can’t do it
- Requires library, not built-in
- Can’t do it
- Can’t do it
Not sure why Haskell is being invoked—several languages have GADTs & macros.
MIT X11-style license
BSD on rust. Will meet same fate long term unless they move to GPL or more copyleft.
Two things can be true at once:
- More Rust in the Linux kernel is good
- Brigading on social media is bad
Open source work is collborative. No matter how good an engineer someone is, if they can’t figure out how work with others, then it’s better to kick them out. A potentially insecure kernel is better than a non-existent one.
I agree. I think Hector Martin should not have endorsed that sort of behavior to whatever extent he did. But I also think long term that the sorts of behavior that’s keeping these rust patches out of the code base will kill the future of the project. The reasons given aren’t even applicable since the patches are in their own branch of the tree. But I agree brigading is not the way to address these sorts of organizational issues
Could someone explain the backpedalling if rust is more secure ?
Old people fear change
People who has been maintaining the kernel and weathered multiple fads are wary to see if new guards will “stick”, or just stay along for a year or five, disappear and leave the old guard with shit.
Thats also true…
Initially it sounded like that…
it’s a different technology and paradigm that the old guard would have to take considerable time to learn to be as productive as they are in C. it requires a different way of thinking about systems.
basically the rust-in-kernel-gang includes none of the “main” kernel team because they are busy building the kernel. this is an experiment to see if a second programming language can be successfully integrated into the kernel at all. if they try to force their way in, that’s going to cause problems for everyone.
Okey,
Same old story with any project with different generations. Looks like the old guys are in the wrong - wont be here forever and there by have to let in new ideas and ways.
the linux kernel is over 30 million lines of code. it may not be there forever, but good luck phasing it out in a lifetime.
I think this comment encapsulates the problem well: laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement. You’re making some very unfair assumptions based on age, and nothing about the actual technical arguments.
This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they’ll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with. It’s childish and unproductive, and while I’ve personally respected Martin as a developer for a long time, I don’t believe he’s mature enough to be involved in the Rust for Linux effort (tbf, he’s not the only Rust dev with this attitude). If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the “old guys” being stubborn.
I don’t care about age, if your sharp - your sharp. Old guys where more describing those in charge not wanting to let anyone in who doesn’t do things like they do. Just thought “old guards” sounded so… lame.
Seen this a bounch of times in other projects and it ends up with good ambitious people leaving. Young blood that in the long run is needed to keep a project like this alive.
laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement.
It doesn’t matter what laymen say, so how can they be the problem?
This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they’ll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with.
Did Hector call people to action to harass the developers that “they disagree with”? Or did they try to promote awareness on the issue that is clearly causing them frustration? They certainly questioned whether or not there was another way besides shaming people on social media and it shows potential growth from my perspective.
If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the “old guys” being stubborn.
Social media is another medium to express yourself and communicate ideas - it is neither good nor bad. If a project that is already developed pretty openly cannot address the criticism by social media/the public of their statements and behaviors, then perhaps they should privatize their communications. Or perhaps just address the criticisms in good faith and explain themselves in the spirit of open source.
my take on the social media thing is that it basically amounts to creating an outside context problem. gathering the opinions of us plebs doesn’t really matter because the kernel isn’t developed by the masses, no matter what ESR thinks. the project is headed by Linus (and his “generals”) and what they say goes. so riling up a bunch of nobodies that aren’t fully aware of all the requirements there are on the kernel will amount to brigading no matter how well-meaning the mob is.
the LKML exists and is public specifically because they don’t want to deal with fielding questions from people on social media. they want to field questions from people who care enough to read it.
actually, they did try using social media for a while. unfortunately they chose google plus.
This whole thing reads not like a codebase versus, but a traditional engineering approach (don’t act like you can patch this once you release it - get it done so it’s stable the first time) versus the more modern “move fast and break things” approach.
My gut tells me that any benefits of adding Rust is massively negated by the addition of a second language.
If one wants to write Rust, there is always Redox and probably a bunch of other kernels.
I like Rust, but it’s for sure an over hyped language. In a year or two, people will push for Zig, Mojo or some new pure and polished functional low level language. Maybe a Scheme or a Lisp? That seems to be what the cool kids use nowadays.
Or maybe we’ll just replace the kernel with an AI that generates machine code according with what should be your intention.
C’mon man, this is just a textbook fallacious slippery slope argument. Rust isn’t some brand new language whose stable release was less than a year ago, it’s over a decade old now. Scheme and Lisp are interpreted languages for God’s sake, it’s borderline* impossible to use them for kernel programming.
Also I’m pretty sure the whole point of the Rust project that all this drama is centered around is to keep Rust code separate from the kernel. From what I understand the whole point is to maintain Rust bindings to the kernel API as a separate project, so that if developers want to write a driver in Rust, they can without having to rewrite those bindings themselves. But the kernel code itself will still be all C code. Now I’m not a kernel developer, and the last time I wrote a driver was for my operating systems class in university over a decade ago, so take that with a grain of salt.
* I say borderline because anything is possible with code if you’re creative enough, but anyone trying to submit Scheme or Lisp code to the Linux kernel is gonna get laughed off the Internet
Technically there’s no such thing as a compiled or interpreted language. Python compilers exist. You could write a Scheme or Lisp compiler. Racket is a Scheme that can be interpreted or compiled
Any language containing
evalin its spec cannot be (fully) compiled ahead of time, you’ll need interpretation or JIT.Also last I checked (it’s been a while) Racket compiles to bitcode and then links in a bitcode interpreter. There’s static lisp/scheme compilers but when they come across an eval, they’re going to bail and compile in a JIT compiler or interpreter to deal with that stuff.
Fair enough, but you COULD create a compiler for a a subset of the language without eval. There are so many dialects of Scheme, what’s one without eval? Evals are very much evil anyway.
There’s plenty of schemes that aren’t fully standards-compliant but I don’t think leaving out eval is common – it’s easy to implement and nothing about the standard says that it needs to run code fast.
Just wanted to point out that eval is the real static vs dynamic boundary. As to evil, sure, you shouldn’t run just any code you find without having a sandbox in place, C’s way to do the same thing is to call
ccfollowed bydlopen, that’s way scarier, which is why people just link in lua or something instead. I guess in <currentyear> you should probably include a wasm runtime instead of usingdlopen.
I don’t think you get my point.
Of course I don’t mean that you should introduce Lisp or Scheme into the Linux kernel. However, I don’t rule out anything when it comes to the future of programming. Kernel programming isn’t that special. If you need to make a scheduler, dynamic memory manager or an interpreter, as part of the kernel, because it solves your problem, you do it. Maybe you want the kernel to generate thread optimised FPGA and micro code on the fly? And this is done with some kind of interpreter. Who knows.
My point is that it’s probably a bad idea introduce any new language into the kernel. A new backwards compatible version of memory safe c might be a good idea though. If it can be done.
Haven’t touched the Linux kernel in 10+ years, but my guess is that a good approach is to write a new micro kernel in Rust. One that is compatible with most existing drivers and board support packages. And of course it has to maintain the userspace ABI and POSIX yada yada. Probably what the Redox project aims for, but I don’t know.
Keeping the Rust bindings in a separate project might be unnecessary though. I’m sceptic about allowing upstream drivers written in Rust just because I find that there is such a great value in sticking to one language. I also know that many kernel developers are getting old and it gets harder to learn new languages the older you get. Especially if the language comes with a decent share of sugar and bling (the minimalism of lisp and c is valuable).
If there is a problem finding driver developers that want to write C code, then sure. But breaking the flow of the senior maintainers/developers likely isn’t worth it. Unless they ask for it.
And also, I really haven’t been following this Rust in the Linux kernel debate.
I dunno, people have been saying Rust will go away in a year or two for, like, five years now. This feels different to me. I could easily be wrong, but I don’t think it’s just another fad language.
I’m not saying that Rust will go away.
Well, go away was maybe not exactly the correct term, but come on. You know what I meant.
My point is simply that it’s probably not worth it to add another language. Doesn’t have anything to do with Rust really.
Though I do think that the language is a bit over hyped. It’s obvious companies and projects used to say they’re using Rust, not just because they want to attract young developers or like the language, but because it’s a way to get VC. Like AI and blockchain.
I do like Rust. But mostly because it encourages functional style programming. And the tooling is of course awesome. Especially compared to C and C++. However, I do believe that static pure functional languages are superior to Rust.
Can someone distill the good faith argument against rust? Is there one?
it’s more niche than C, has less competency available, works very differently to C, and requires a whole new toolchain to be added to the already massive kernel compilation process. for it to be plain sailing adding it to the kernel some of the worlds’ foremost domain experts on operating systems would have to re-learn basically everything.
also since rust is just coming up on 15 years of existence without a 1.0 release, there’s no way to ensure that the code written today will be considered well-formed by the time 1.0 hits.??? Rust 1.0 was released 10 years ago and since then there have been no breaking changes.
so it was! cool!
i will admit i’m not very well versed in rust, the only time i’ve used it was in like 2016, in an embedded context where there were hard restrictions on what could be used. no crates, no macros, no traits, no threading, and a very limited number of functions. procedural style, basically. someone else chose the wrong language and i just had to work within the system.
if the language is stable, i’m assuming the instability issues come from external crates? or are they just made up?
I havent noticed any problems with instability, at least for web server development it is stable enough. But it may be different in other contexts like embedded. And its true that many libraries still have 0.x versions.
Syntax ugly
Only one compiler nailed to LLVM. And other reasons already mentioned.
Can someone distill the good faith argument against rust? Is there one?
The problem is that even if it’s objectively better, you can’t magically convert everything instantaneously, and it’s a lot more work maintaining rust and C versions of the same code until everything is re-implemented in rust.
If the rust devs are willing to take on that work, what’s the problem?
It will take more effort than writing kernel from scratch. Which they are doing anyway.
(n.b. I am neither a rust, nor C developer so I am writing outside my own direct experience)
One of the arguments brought up on the kernel.org thread was that if there were changes to the C side of the API, how would this avoid breaking all the rust bindings? The reply to this was that like with any big change in the Linux kernel that affects multiple systems with multiple different teams involved, that it would require a coordinated and collaborative approach — i.e. it’s not like the rust side of things would only start working on responding to a breaking change once that change has broken the rust bindings. This response (and many of the responses to it) seemed reasonable to me.
However, in order for that collaboration to work, there are going to have to be C developers speaking to rust developers, because the rust developers who need to repair the bindings will need to understand some of what’s being proposed, and thus they’ll need to understand some level of C, and vice versa. So in practice, it seems nigh on impossible for the long term, ongoing maintenance of this code to be entirely a task for the rust devs (but I think this is taking an abnormally flexible reading of “maintenance” — communicating with other people is just part and parcel of working on such a huge project, imo)
Some people have an ideological opposition to there being two different programming languages in the Linux kernel full stop. This is part of why the main thing that rust has been used for so far are drivers, which are fairly self enclosed. Christoph Hellwig even used the word “cancer” to describe a slow creep towards a codebase of two languages. I get the sense that in his view, this change that’s being proposed could be the beginning of the end if it leads to continued prevalence of rust in Linux.
I haven’t written enough production code to have much of an opinion, but my impression is that people who are concerned are valid (because I do have more than enough experience with messy, fragmented codebases), but that their opposition is too strong. A framework that comes to mind is how risk assessments (like are done for scientific research) outline risks that often cannot be fully eliminated but can be reduced and mitigated via discussing them in the context of a risk assessment. Using rust in Linux at all hasn’t been a decision taken lightly, and further use of it would need ongoing participation from multiple relevant parties, but that’s just the price of progress sometimes.
This is just a dick measuring contest.
Shit they triggered the raid boss early
LEEEEROOOOOY JENKINS!
OK, who pulled?
Why am I even asking, it was the hunter of course.
The quote he replied to:
If shaming on social media does not work, then tell me what does, because I’m out of ideas.
Yeah, lol
Yeah, Linus conspicuously did not answer that question either.
that article is horrible to read! every paragraph starts with quotation, but then never closes it😵
That’s how that works normally
