
Lol, very first pair of comments. I love phoronix sometimes.

Lol, very first pair of comments. I love phoronix sometimes.
Ah, the duality of man...
Volta raging over any rust post, a classic XD
Replace a perfectly usable GPL software for MIT? Nope. I used to fall for that ten years ago. The social infrastructure of software is more important than the exact tech used. The license is fundamental to that.
it still has a permissive license :(
You are very right. While non-copyleft licences makes sense for some software (a game engine like Godot, for example, released under the MIT licence) it's absolutely awful for the coreutils.
What's wrong with a permissive licence?
GPL or GTFO! On a more serious note: Permissive licenses open a project up to unilateral exploitation by commercial entities and can lead to fractured ecosystems.
On a more principled note: permissive licenses (as compared to free software licenses) undermine the free software ecosystem and the freedoms it brings in the long term and the thing that uutils is doing - that is taking a GPL licensed project and rewriting it under a more permissive license is corrosive to free software. GPL applies not when corporations use a piece of software, but when they distribute binaries back to you. This is not about limiting the rights of corporations but about protecting the digital freedom of people.
It allows corporations to take without giving back.
It's why Sony and Apple based their operating systems on BSD over Linux.
We like the Rust, we hate the cuck license. Simple.
I don't understand what's going on with the rust community insisting on cuck licences. Do they love writing on their Mac books so much?
I think a part of it may be that they are from the younger generation like myself, and most of them don't really know the history of software and FOSS, and MIT is just a safe option for them. I think they haven't really put in the time to read and undertstand the philosophy and logic behind FOSS and read the licenses and writings.
It is trolling when it broke production level systems?
To be fair im NOT blaming the rust util team. I hope the best for them. But it was a bad decision to use something like that to power systems before it was fully tested and ready. It broke many different things in prod at work and we had to switch over to another distro entirely. Which was a lot of work. It made us stop using Ubuntu which is a shame.
Your first mistake was using Ubuntu on a production server. Canonical has made more than enough questionable decisions over the past decade that using Ubuntu for a production system should be a red flag.
Your probably right. It was an old setup but ill own it. I inherited it (mitus touch) so I probably should have put more effort into switching.
It is trolling when it broke production level systems?
Depends. Were they the ones who put it into production level systems? If the answer to that question is no, then, well, you have your answer already.
If they could just use a real licence and even more copyleft (at least something, like EUPL, MPL or GPLv2)
The licence would be significantly better. And would drive a bit more adoption.
Going from GPL to a weaker license was a terrible idea and whoever supported it should be held accountable.
Rust Coreutils Continues Working Toward 100% GNU Compatibility, Proving Trolls Wrong
98 comments
Phoronix, you are the trolls.
Lol, phoronix forums being on point
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP