I can finally stop calling it GNU/Linux.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
179 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
9512 readers
36 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rust/linux^Rust^
Lust
Oh good God, Linux is finally old enough to start rusting?! And on BOTH ENDS?
vigorously shakes can of WD-40
That's extremely unexpected.
The GNU utils weren't written by Canonical so they were doomed from the start.
Not to worry, they'll ship 'em via snap.
Straight to jail.
I like snap, send me to camp.
Oh god no
More likely they will make them dependent on snap so you can't remove snap without breaking the system.
Why?
Because why? I can expect a very niche distro like Cachy do it but not a big project with a serious market share.
Canonical has a long history of doing wacky shit that nobody asked for though. Unity, upstart, snap, probably other things that I'm not thinking of
Unity was great, though. Ubuntu took a hit going back to customized gnome
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wait is this their way to break compatibility with old binaries so that you're forced to use snap?
They're steadily climbing the test suit:
The uutils should be compatible so I don't think so
Check out our new Coreutils! (Snap required)
Seriously though I'm just imagining that Coreutils are now going to be dependent on snap.
I don't think so unless they make their own rust core utils.
Is there any actual benefit ?
Code written in Rust has been shown to have significantly fewer security vulnerabilities than code written in C. Distributions like Ubuntu ship a lot of security updates, so by switching to Rust-based utils, they can reduce their workload in the long run.
Ubuntu ship a lot of security updates
After introducing the Pro I don't think so.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's been proven faster. That's all I personally know.
Nothing except for binary coding can be faster than C I think.
Rust is better for writing multithreaded applications which means that the small amount of utilities that can utilize parallelism receive a significant speedup. uutils multithreaded sort was apparently 6x faster than the GNU utils single threaded version.
P.S. I strongly doubt handwritten assembly is more efficient than modern C compilers.
P.S. I strongly doubt handwritten assembly is more efficient than modern C compilers.
As with everything, it all depends.
When writing super efficient assembly you write towards the destination and not necessarily to fit higher level language constructs. There are often ways to cut corners for aspects not needed, reduction in instructions and loops all based on well designed assembly.
The problem is you aren't going to do that for every single CPU instruction because it would take forever and not provide a good ROI. It is far more common to write 99% of your system code in C and then write just the parts that can really benefit from fine tuned assembly. And please note that unless you're writing for an RTOS or something crazy critical on efficiency, its going to be even less assembly.
In large applications maybe not, but in benchmarks there can be a perfectly optimized assembly
Of course, for hot paths or small examples it is, but I doubt it's feasible or maintainable to write a “real” projects like core utilities in assembly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
My simple assembly program can rum circles around compilers. As long as something is small it is possible to optimize better than a C compiler.
Compilers have a lot of chalenges to even compile, let alone optimize. Just register allocation alone is a big problem. An inherent problem is that the compiler does not know what the program is supposed to do. Humans still write better assembly then compilers.
The one down arrow on the guy you are responding to is from me, just so everybody knows.
This is just wrong, the compiler (and linker) knows exactly what the program does as it has the ENTIRE source code available. Compilers have been so good the last 20 years that it is quite hard to write things faster in assembly/machine code.
One of the harder parts about assembly is keeping track of which registers a subroutine uses and which one is available, as the program grows larger you might be forced to push/pop to the stack all the time. Inlining code is also difficult in assembler, the compiler is quite adept at that.
It might have been true up until the 90s, but then compilers started getting so good (Watcom) there was rarely any point to write assembler code, unless there was some extremely hardware specific thing that needed to be done
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fortran
I'm not sure why people are downvoting you, since Fortran is known to be extremely performant when dealing with multidimensional arrays.
Just security and hype afaik.
No, it isn't just hype. The hype is justified.
Outside of security you have some very really world benefits, like performance gains in various scenarios as well as lots more people willing to contribute and a much better type system (more maintainability).
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well the rust project is MIT licensed, so definitely not.
I thought MIT licensing was a good thing?? What am i missing??
The success of FOSS can in large part be attributed to copyleft licenses like the GPL. Without the protections of copyleft clauses, software just gets exploited by large corporations and end users are locked out. For just one example, if GNU software had used MIT, the entire free router movement (i.e ddwrt, openwrt and co.) would probably not exist today.
See: Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc..
Edit: actually, I think by the time of this specific lawsuit, the sources for wrt54g were already released after community pressure, this article details the history a bit better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Rust is good, rare Ubuntu W. Now stop with the forced use of snaps.
You think this is a win, but is just another step in the enshittification.
What about licences and FOSS?
According to the video it's MIT licence, and they discuss the risk of such a licence vs coreutils usage of the GPL
This worries me indeed.
Archlinux usually is a bit more reasonable. I don’t understand the forcing. Just makes me love it (archlinux) more!
This is the Linux community's Sophie's choice.
Ubuntu continues to show that it's the absolute worst.
Literally why? Not even criticizing rust but the GNU core utils are easily some of the most reliable and documented software tools ever written.
Not to mention, looks like the rust core utils are MIT and not GPL.
load more comments
(1 replies)
To bad no body really uses it (or at least they shouldn't)
view more: next ›