157
submitted 6 days ago by BCBoy911@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 92 points 6 days ago

It's expected, because the tools are still in development and have not reached 100% test covered yet. Ubuntu 25.10 is not a long term version, so ideal for real world testing. But now we can expect copy-pasta ai blog posts all over the place. And personal attacks against the programming language itself.

[-] anon5621@lemmy.ml 50 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Btw for me persona problem of this replacement is only license switching from strong copy left to permissive, I don't really like this trend it smells really bad from what corps actuality like more nowadays as fear as fire gpl.I don't know who exactly staying behind rust coreutils but devs just ignore all request about GPL or responding very cold or find any other stupid excuse like they don't wanna deal with it. At least they could give their direct point of their views and their motivation about it.but still will not support MIT licence as for main tools for importan core of system

[-] m33@lemmy.zip 37 points 6 days ago

That’s a pretty big problem, I couldn’t care less about the language. But stepping away from GPL is not good at all.

[-] chaos@beehaw.org 8 points 6 days ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what the worst case scenario is... like, is some company going to get rich off of their proprietary cp and sudo implementation that they forked off of an open one?

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

It's one thing when a company gets the benefits of people's contributions and doesn't give back (in the form of source code when they build upon it and at the time they offer binary files). If a company wants to do the work themselves.. well now they don't have too.

GPL promoters typically value software freedom, and may believe it's generally bad for society when software is proprietary. I don't know what coreutlis does but I doubt there's a thoughtful reason to choose MIT license for a clone.

[-] lol@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

for me persona problem of this replacement is only license switching from strong copy left to permissive

Why does it matter to you? If the developers are fine with the license and how the code they write can be used under it, that's their prerogative. You don't lose anything if some company also uses those programs.

I don’t know who exactly staying behind rust coreutils but devs just ignore all request about GPL

What are you expecting them to say? "That's the license we chose for this thing we're allowing you to use for free. Use it or don't, we don't care"? They have no obligation to justify themselves to you.

will not support MIT licence as for main tools for importan core of system

What do you mean by support? Would be be donating money to the developers if the license was different? The developers don't get anything from you using their code.

[-] axum 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I understand the sentiment.

The move to a permissive license opens the door for these tools to possibly become closed source one day.

[-] lol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Why is that a problem if the developers are apparently fine with it?

Everyone can still use the open source version/fork. It could only become a problem if distributions for some reason decided to use that closed source version, which doesn't make any sense.

I fail to see a worst case scenario here beyond companies being able to profit from the software as well.

[-] axum 1 points 3 days ago

That's just it though. The developers can drop out over time, then some other corp can come in and control it, then close source it.

[-] custard_swollower@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

You know that you can change license of software that you own copyright to? You can take GPL code and change it to something else, but you can’t un-GPL existing released code. It’s the same thing with MIT.

The only people bound by the license are people who use it because it is licensed to them.

The difference is that organisation may develop MIT software without publishing their code.

[-] Obin@feddit.org 8 points 6 days ago

Why does it matter to you? If the developers are fine with the license and how the code they write can be used under it, that’s their prerogative.

That's a bit short-sighted. On the level of the individual project you are right, it's the dev's choice. And I think permissive licenses also have a place with security critical software like crypto libraries, where everyone benefits from secure libraries being used as much as possible, even in proprietary software.

But on an ecosystem level, this trend to permissive licensing is very worrying, because if it reaches a critical mass, it opens us up to EEE scenarios. Android is already bad enough, only made bearable by Google having to release much of the source code. Imagine what it would be like today if Google had succeeded with their Fuchsia efforts. So we should at least be wary and give a little pushback to this trend. It's valid to question if everything under the sun has to be rewritten and if it does, why does it have to be permissive licensing? What's the end goal?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Feyd@programming.dev 32 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Why would something that hasn't reached sufficient test coverage, or that fails one of the most common test suites around, be put into one of the largest distros around, lts version or not? It's honestly ridiculous

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 17 points 6 days ago

To test it. That's the whole reason why the 6 months releases between the LTS releases in Ubuntu exists.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 26 points 6 days ago

https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle

Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 25.04 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases.

Key words "production quality". This sure doesn't seem "production quality" to me.

[-] BCBoy911@lemmy.ca 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There's still a few weeks until 25.10 releases. If its still issues by release time I'm sure that they'll either delay the 25.10 release (as they have done in the past) or pause the coreutils-rs rollout and stick to GNU Coreutils for this release.

[-] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

Furthermore, 25.10 is a short-term release that exists as a preview for 26.04. 25.10 will receive security patches for nine months. 26.04, as an LTS, will receive security patches for up to 12 years (most of which are paid). Nobody should be seriously migrating to 25.10.
If coreutils-rs does get into the official release of 25.10 and totally tanks it, well, that's what short-term releases are for.

[-] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 days ago

We shall hope so.

A few tests failing in beta, when this can be fixed before the release, is hardly newsworthy.

However it leaves a bad taste to even consider replacing coreutils when it's nur clear that the replacement is rock solid. Those commands are used in millions of shell scripts distributed alongside applications. Should coreutils break, we'd learn the hard way.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 6 days ago

Yes you're must likely correct. I was simply pushing back on the other poster talking like ubuntu releases other than lts are unstable/testing releases. They are intended to be stable and usable, which is certainly not the case if they include the core utils replacement as it currently stands.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 3abas@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

No... This revisionism to defend canonical is nonsense. LTS releases don't promise the most recent releases of software, but they promise security and stability updates for longer, so they are more suitable for servers and users who don't want to worry about breaking changes often.

That's it. The releases between Long Term SERVICE releases are production ready and not testing releases. They are recommended for most people.

[-] vapeloki@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Sure, but everybody is aware that roughly 30% of the Internet run on ubuntu:latest and well, that will move to 25.10 soon.

And yes, nobody should do this, using a latest tag for docker builds, but everybody does it ... So ....

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snikta@programming.dev 38 points 6 days ago

New non-copyleft Rust implementation. While we're at it, let's throw in some blockchain and AI as well. The eccentric South African billionaire CEO will be pleased.

[-] arty@feddit.org 25 points 6 days ago

I will really appreciate the irony when it turns out that it’s the new implementation in Rust that is correct

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

GNU is really its own thing and not reallyPOSIX anymore. So GNU is right even if they are wrong.

This is not me advocating for GNU. I use BSD utils myself.

On this issue, your were right in a way. My understanding is that the uutils version of dd was respecting the fullblock parameter, causing problems on slow pipes. GNU ignore this and was doing partial writes. Uutils has been modified to match GNU and is “working” now. At least, a tested patch has been submitted.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

If you pipe, dd is the wrong tool anyway. Replace with cp or cat. dd is a fine scalpel but a bad shovel.

Useless use of dd

[-] eutampieri@feddit.it 10 points 5 days ago

In both these cases, dd serves no real purpose. It’s purely a superstitious charm trying to ensure safe passage of the data. You can see how silly this is when you replace dd with the functionally equivalent catcat /dev/sda | pv | cat > /dev/sdb

😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 days ago

New software has bugs??

[-] yggstyle@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Related and sane response:

(Low Level) https://youtu.be/Jgq551IhquA?t=4m7s

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago

canonical doing canonical things

[-] cornshark@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago
[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 19 points 6 days ago

And……fixed.

A few days ago we had a “performance” bug. Before the stories had even been written, the uutils was made 50% faster than GNU.

Now we have an actual difference in behaviour. But it is again fixed before the stories could even go out.

The anti-Rust crew is really trying to celebrate hear but it seems like uutils is proving them wrong so far.

We will see what happens in production I suppose.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago

I don't think it's anti-Rust. I like Rust. I don't like the uutils license.

[-] pr06lefs@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago

Glad to see someone's working the bugs out.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago
[-] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago

I warned ya. Rust folks never make a true 1:1 replacement. They have to tweek it. Always.

[-] axum 43 points 6 days ago

This is such bad take only because it singles out rust for some weird reason. Tool total rewrites take work regardless of language

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] trevor 14 points 6 days ago

This type of comment is indistinguishable from the low-tier, rage bait comments under every Phoronix article.

[-] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

This isn't a rage bait comment. Show me one Rust tool replacement made that didn't alter functionality in some way, causing edge cases, and sometimes even mainline usage, to break and scripts have to be written to accommodate. I've not seen it yet. If you have, I will gladly stand corrected. The language is great, it's the programmers at issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 4 points 6 days ago

I'm willing to bet that if the GNU coreutils getting bumped a minor version caused widespread issues for a day, nobody would even bother reporting in it...

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

Can you point to an instance that actually happened?

[-] Magnum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago
[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 6 points 6 days ago

... Yeah? Beta software having bugs isn't the hottest of takes.

[-] neclimdul@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago
  1. Minor releases aren't beta. By any convention they should be fully tested, final releases. And if gnu core utils broke systems in a minor release you better believe it would make it to some news.
  2. The instability of choosing a beta software for the literal core of your operating system is kind of the point.
[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 4 points 5 days ago

Ubuntu 25.10 entered beta on September 18th. It releases on October 9th. It's still in beta.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago

Silksong has tons of bugs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

There seems to be a bug in rust md5 implementation. This can break everything, but then everything can soon be fixed too.

[-] cornshark@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Looks like md5 is fine, it's dd that's wrong

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
157 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

58677 readers
401 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS