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.
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
That’s a pretty big problem, I couldn’t care less about the language. But stepping away from GPL is not good at all.
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?
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.
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
To test it. That's the whole reason why the 6 months releases between the LTS releases in Ubuntu exists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A test and benchmark suite from Phoronix is not production. Canonical tested software before in short term supported versions, before they include it in long term. And there was occasions when they reverted back. Production quality is a vague term. Compared to daily development releases, the interim releases are production quality.
I am not defending mistakes, I am setting expectations.
A test suite from phoronix having issues is certainly enough of a canary in the coalmine that this stuff is not ready for showtime. You have been saying that non-lts ubuntu releases are basically unstable releases but that has never been the intent and is not even what they say.
The non-LTS versions are unstable by definition and that's the goal; to be unstable. And no, I am not talking about buggy stability type, but more like "unchanging, reliable". In example changing Wayland by default or back then from Unity to GNOME 3 would only happen in a non-LTS version, because that is a huge change and need to be "tested" before LTS commitment. That does not mean Canonical doesn't care about quality, but that is not the biggest goal with the in between releases. Its like Beta, a current snapshot of the development.
Canonical can state what they want, the history, actions and results are what is important. What do you think is the reason Canonical does the non LTS releases?
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.
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 ....
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.
New software has bugs??
I will really appreciate the irony when it turns out that it’s the new implementation in Rust that is correct
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.
If you pipe, dd is the wrong tool anyway. Replace with cp or cat. dd is a fine scalpel but a bad shovel.
In both these cases,
ddserves 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 replaceddwith the functionally equivalentcat:cat /dev/sda | pv | cat > /dev/sdb
😂
Glad to see someone's working the bugs out.
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.
I don't think it's anti-Rust. I like Rust. I don't like the uutils license.
I warned ya. Rust folks never make a true 1:1 replacement. They have to tweek it. Always.
This is such bad take only because it singles out rust for some weird reason. Tool total rewrites take work regardless of language
Oh, it's not the language. It's the type of people who not only like Rust, but have a compulsion / need / fixation on re-writing existing tools. They say it's so it's more secure, but honestly it's so they can apply their own opinions of how the tool should be. They always promise to make it a drop in replacement, but then then get rid of options, or change what they do... they can't help themselves. And that is the kind of people who volunteer to port tools to Rust. If they would stick to true 1:1 replacement, this wouldn't be an issue.
Are there other types of people? Writing software to be bug-for-bug compatible with something else is really difficult and, yes, not fun at all. You will not find many people looking to volunteer for that...
I like tool rewrites. But fixing major issues just before it is used in so many systems? It’s irresponsible.
It should of been given more time to mature. And Ubuntu is used so much, even the odd versions of it, that if one thing goes wrong later; this will cause a lot of bad press for both Rust and Ubuntu.
It should make the rust community very nervous. So many companies use the Ubuntu:latest tag in so many projects. And millions of people will hear, after being subject to the breakages, that it was all about Rust. Even though it’s not about Rust, just bad management
This type of comment is indistinguishable from the low-tier, rage bait comments under every Phoronix article.
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.
Silksong has tons of bugs.
If you rely on a bug, it becomes a feature.
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...
Can you point to an instance that actually happened?
Do you REALLY think that?
... Yeah? Beta software having bugs isn't the hottest of takes.
Ubuntu 25.10 entered beta on September 18th. It releases on October 9th. It's still in beta.
There seems to be a bug in rust md5 implementation. This can break everything, but then everything can soon be fixed too.
Looks like md5 is fine, it's dd that's wrong
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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0