139

Linux 7.0 Officially Concluding The Rust Experiment (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 15 hours ago by cm0002@europe.pub to c/linux@programming.dev

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While Linux 7.0 is the next kernel version solely over Linus Torvalds' numbering preference, there is a notable symbolic change that was sent in overnight for this new kernel merge window: formally concluding the "Rust experiment" with upstream kernel developers now in acceptance that Rust for the Linux kernel is here to stay.

The patch was talked about back in December that the Rust experiment is over and it's here to stay. There are already uses for Rust in production environments, some Linux distributions shipping with Rust kernel code, and millions of Android devices also using it.

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] TrivialBetaState@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 hours ago

Can someone explain to me why Rust has been so controversial for the GNU/Linux kernel? One thing that I personally don't like is that the equivalent Rust-made (equivalent) GNU tools are licensed under MIT (or Apache? - something permissive like that) instead of GPL. If they were under GPL, I'd be more than happy. But since the kernel is under GPL regardless of C or Rust, what is the reason for the backlash? Sounds like a very promising language indeed.

[-] Auth@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

The entire controversy is that its different.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

What's the advantage of GPL? As far as I'm aware MIT and Apache are both FOSS. But I'm new to this and still learning.

I don't know what the big deal about Rust is. It seems like a cool language to me...

[-] TrivialBetaState@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 hours ago

GPL enforces that all derivatives are FOSS and GPL as well. With permissive licenses, like MIT and Apache, a company is free to take the code, change/develop it further (or leave it as is) and make it closed-sourced without sharing anything with anyone. Regarding Rust, I am with you. Hence my question.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

I see. That makes sense.

So if the kernel were written in a language licensed under GPL, for instance, Ubuntu would either have to ditch their proprietary blobs or make their own kernel?

If I had to guess, the only reason Rust might be controversial to some people is probably because they're used to C and likely set in their ways. Someone who's been programming since the 80s and doesn't want to learn a new language cause maybe they'll feel like a newbie again and can't be smug about knowing every possible command in C anymore. Just a guess...

[-] TrivialBetaState@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 hours ago

I'm pretty sure that code written in any language can be licensed under the GPL. That's why I cannot understand the backlash against Rush for the Kernel.