111
Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with rust based uutils (www.cyberciti.biz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.

What are your thoughts abouth this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

but they do exist and most of those would be solved with a memory and type safe language.

Maybe.

Still, there are other sources of bugs beyond memory management.

And i'd rather have GPL-ed potentially unsafe C code to... closed-source Rust code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Rust code isn't closed source, but I'd strongly prefer a coreutils replacement to use GPL over MIT as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    To add to @ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today

    The uutils are MIT licensed, simply put it means “do whatever you want with it, as long as you credit us”.
    The coreutils are GPL, simply put “do whatever you want with it but only in other GPL works, also credit us”.

    The coreutils make sure forks will also be open source.
    While the uutils aren't closed source, they do allow you to make closed source forks.

    The uutils' license is too permissive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent