• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • This is absurd. Are you being serious? I’m aware how sanctions are setup in the US because I’m compelled to complete hr training on them every 8 months even though I have no interaction with anyone that would overlap with sanctions requirements. That doesn’t make it any less absurd. It’s also not on me to somehow categorically disprove the link between Linux contributions and military work, the onus there is and as it always should be is on the entity demanding you do something in response to it. But OK, let’s say all the work on Linux coming from anyone who happens to live in or have a Russian nationality somehow goes back to the war effort. Ban work on Russian firmware or Linux compatibility with Russian hardware. Don’t ban Russian people unilaterally and with force using flimsy hypothetical justifications and reductive arguments. I go back to ww1 and the role of scientists in war. They should abstain. Developers should abstains. We don’t belong to the countries we live in, our work should exist for all mankind and to the betterment of society as a whole. If the US wants a trade embargo, or a corporate berlin wall I’m all for it. This is not that.

    Edit: Also, not really relevent, but I would be absolutely amazed if the Russian government is somehow on the bleeding edge of linux development and actively deploying head branch builds of linux with the latest available firmware. Most of the US government still runs on windows out of sheer apathy. If they are using these contributions in drones their almost certainly backporting to a stable linux release and that means this kinda ban if it follows you’re reason isn’t going to have an impact until a few releases down the line and that’s easily bypassable by just not upgrading linux. Russian already presumably sanctioned to older hardware (excluding self manufactured) so that isn’t even a hard choice.






  • This line of reasoning kind of falls apart when you deal with someone that doesn’t act on good faith. For example you can pioneer democracy and the will of the people and then let 10% of radical people use propaganda to brainwash 41% of normal people to take over the government and then basically breakapart the foundations of democracy and people’s rights. The end result is a democratic path to the end of democracy and a worse situation for everyone involved. There’s a reason people say you can’t be tolerant of anti-tolerance.


  • For the world to be truly united into a democratic representative utopia. A world without war, without famine, without global warming. At the heart of all issues is, despite the fact we’re all so close to each other, that we operate and behave in our own self interests or to the detriment of each other. I’d wish for all borders to be opened. Everyone to be given a unquestionable bare minimum set of human rights across the globe. Removal of diplomatic immunity and forced standardisation of laws with the goal of levelling the living standards of all people. Etc. World peace but with a foundation to keep it going I think.




  • The reverse is also true. Any dev wanting to contribute to Linux in rust which linus himself allowed (despite his silence on this matter) are just going to have to deal with constant headache trying to maintain compatibility with the C interfaces which the devs keep breaking. Either they should’ve never allowed rust in the kernel or they should force devs to at least act in good faith and collaborate (and any that refuse to, well they should be ousted because they can’t behave responsibly). This entire situation is so toxic and I see that as a failure in leadership. That zfs comment is also a little toxic but I don’t think it’s a direct quote. It also doesn’t seem like a fair comparison because from what I can tell zfs isn’t even part of the kernel code base and due to legal reasons cannot be. While it would be great for the kernel not to break it, it is, for all intents and purposes an external project. This rust debacle is different because it’s rust kernel devs and c kernel devs both operating in the same project and trying to find some kind of alignment. To me it seems like there’s enough of an acknowledgment of the value of memory safety that rust support was considered but there’s no authority figure actually supporting it or defending the devs that were invited to actually contribute in it. What a mess.


  • This specific talk was about defining shared common interfaces so these different groups could work together and the guy who actually talked him into stepping down essentially said “I’m gonna keep writing C and if that breaks your rust stuff that’s not my problem”. This isn’t about convincing the c devs to write rust it’s about convincing them to work together when some of them seem to have made up their mind to sabotage rust support (either through indifference or willful interface regressions). Personally I’m more ashamed what this points to for someone new wanting to come in contribute to Linux.







  • Man, despite loving Foss this whole debacle is so disillusioning for anyone that ever wanted to pivot to working on it full time. You don’t have to agree with people wanting to try new things, but the bare minimum is not to spew vitriol to keep them quiet or claim you’ll break their stuff and that’s their problem because they aren’t doing things the same way as you but still depend on a shared ecosystem. All we have to do is be bloody polite to each other and build cool sh*t, why is that so hard. All the best to the Linux rust rewrite for these folks, but to me it just feels like both projects are losing here. Linux losing the passion and drive for adopting more modern stuff and all the folks with that drive opting to restart from scratch because too many people refuse to get along.