10
Ubuntu 26.10 Moves cp, mv & rm Over To Rust Coreutils For 100% Transition (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/ubuntu@lemmy.ml
comment fedilink hide all child comments

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
18 comments in c/linux@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 14 points 1 month ago

I just wish they were using GPL or even AGPL

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    so in a few more versions we will get the basic shell utilities enshittified in Ubuntu? Maybe a monthly subscription to be able to rename files.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Why is this enshittification?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    Some people don't like Rust language, its eco system and community and the MIT license at all. Combine them and replace core functionality of a popular distribution, that is enshittification for some. Even though the Rust programs are compatible.

    I don't mind MIT license and even do like Rust. But my personal problem with this decision in Ubuntu is, that these Coreutils tools in Rust are not proven yet and finished with 100% bug for bug compatibility and feature parity. So this is a premture decision in Ubuntu for my taste.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I like MIT for libraries, not a huge fan of it for core OS utilities because it just means they'll be free to lock up features behind Ubuntu Pro or whatever it's called. Eugh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. They can lock things up behind paywall, if the license is GPL too. As long as any source code of it is online available. Which it is for the Rust Utils, that's not in Canonicals hand. And if Canonical does make changes to their own version, then these are no longer compatible software with the GNU Utils. But the point is being compatible.

    So I don't get the fear here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    GPL doesn't allow for closed source forks. MIT does. You can add extra features without removing compatibility, by adding new flags, etc. Though I do struggle to come up with what premium features cp, mv and rm in particular could be expanded with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I don't think that is a problem. As long as the GNU tools behave as the original ones, that's okay. If someone wants to target Ubuntu extensions of the tools, they can. Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?

    It just feels like people are making up issues that aren't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?

    I mean RHEL has been kinda doing it with GPL for a few years. They share the code with you if you have a subscription, since they have to, but if you share it with anyone, they'll void your subscription contract. With MIT you can skip that scheme altogether and just make version closed source.

    Like... Why else would they use MIT here? They could have just used GPL for the Rust coreutils.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Coreutils are being dropped in favour of "move fast and break things" model with Rust and permissive licenses that allows for corporations to pull the rug from under the users (and developers) and put subscription barriers on everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    That has to be the absolute dumbest take ever.

    Nothing about this suggests they will put "subscription barriers" on anything.

    Stop scaremongering

    There's lots of good reasons to use rust over C.

    Even if it was GPL, since they developed the tools, they can still dual licence. It just means any third party contributions added to the GPL code couldn't be added back into the proprietary one. That's what GPL helps protect against.. It doesn't stop the original developers releasing a commercial version at all.

    Not that there is any evidence they would.. If they were trying to achieve that, you wouldn't target coreutils (you'd target more profitable things, like a desktop environment, or drivers)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Actually, just to add to this..

    Technically, it doesn't even stop them adding contributor code to a proprietary implementation if that WAS the case (which it clearly isn't). They'd just need need the contributor agreement to pass ownership of any contributions to Canonical (which is generally in a lot of the agreements anyway, to protect against developers trying to sue later).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Buuut I mean, this is still a reversible decision, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •