37
Ubuntu 26.10 Moves cp, mv & rm Over To Rust Coreutils For 100% Transition (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/linux@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 day 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
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day 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 day 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
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 day 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
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day 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 day 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
    •