It’s not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default.

Do you think it was intentional ideological decision by the Rust developers or some other contributors/interests to make permissive the default? Or a random decision that has ended up being consequential because of the popularity of Rust?

I have noticed for a long time that github promotes MIT license. It lets you use any, of course, but puts a real positive shine on MIT. My perception is that this is a purposeful intervention by MS into FLOSS to promote MIT.

I do not program. So maybe trying to understand all this is over my head. wikipedia describes

A static library or statically linked library contains functions and data that can be included in a consuming computer program at build-time such that the library does not need to be accessible in a separate file at run-time.

I thought that was the idea of binaries in general. In the Arch repos there are many packages appended with -bin. (The Arch repos also contain items of various licenses including proprietary.) Lots of FLOSS packages make a binary available by direct download from their website. Without too much detail, is there something special about Rust? Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of a binary release.

library code licensed under it must be able to be replaced.

Does this mean you need to be able to make a reproducible build? Or need to be able to swap code for something else? Wouldn't that inherently break a program?

Yes you are correct I mis-used the term. I mean copyleft. So I fixed the post. :)

soo you are saying people are tricked into it?

Over the years, forums did not really get smaller, so much as the rest of the internet just got bigger.

matrix isn't a forum. it's a chat.

pipeline to fascism

I assume they are just harvesting email addresses unless a very small site

There are so many niche forums.

Here's one I found a while ago when I was looking at repairing an old electric fan I found: Antique Fan Collector's Forum.

In the way that people would always add "reddit" to their searches, try just adding "forum".

Is there any specific reason to keep the docs in the wiki section? Vs markdown documents right in the wiki itself?

For my self I like to document in the code itself. It has one major benefit which is: I always know where the information is to be found. But there are some problems with it such as

• creates conflicts when merging changes from another repo or branch

• it makes the git history a lot messier because you have some commits on functional code and some on comments, all mixed up in a single document. I know with fancier git this could be tidier but I can't reliably work at such a high skill level

• comments are not subject to syntax formatting so harder to read

• source document itself becomes too long to read and hard to understand

• extremely contextual to my skills and challenges at the time when I wrote the code; not what I will need to know in the future and not what others need to know

So not always the way to go.

thanks I was wondering about that but forgot to specifically ask :)

This is a case where both tools are invaluable.

The original find has much more comprehensive options. Of course it is extensively documented and you can find all kinds of information online about how it works and how to combine it with other tools to accomplish all kinds of tasks. And it's GPL which is always preferable.

fd has a narrower range of functionality but goddamned it really is faster. fd can run several searches on the whole hard drive's contents while find is struggling to get through just a single comparable search on the same set of files. For simple tasks, the cli usage for fd is less to remember and less to type.

If I had to choose, I'd stick with find because it can do everything, even if it's slower and more cumbersome. But luckily, don't have to choose, just have both and use them as appropriate.