128
The real shitshow is it's MIT licensing. Corporate takeover 101
Corporate takeover?
Ubuntu has always belong to a corporation.
It's not like it's a community project. Ubuntu has always belonged to Canonical.
Coreutils isn't only for ubuntu. Ubuntu just seems to be the lab rat corporation.
There are many kinds of corporations, my friend. Canonical is different from Apple. Wait a second... Wasn't OS X built on FreeBSD?
How is it a takeover, if they write their own set of tools?
What an absolute shitshow
I'd say the month of June is actually a good time to be breaking and fixing things in a release that is due to come out in (checks notes) October.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Rust-rewriting is a kind of madness. I like Rust, it's an amazing language. But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won't make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.
The MIT license also is a concern. I understand that many projects use it, and we can't just reject them because of the license. But here we don't see an innovation under MIT license - we see a copy of existing GNU tools, with hilarious issues and a corporation-friendly license.
The fact uutils are being shipped despite being so raw shows that this is not about better software. The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.
And the quality level of uutils being already shipped tells they either make free alpha testers for the corpos of the users, or there were no competent programmers to take part in the development.
C will remain the core of the modern digital world for many years. It is impossible to rewrite everything to Rust in a couple of years. It needs a careful professional approach if we really want this to make software better. But in this case, no one does.
But bruh, "if it compiles, it works". Who needs testing now that we have blazing safe rust with AI?
"Ship fast and break things", bruh.
That's the sad point where the software industry is at these days.
In a few years people will be locked-in with some proprietary Linux distro variants made by big tech and they will wonder how that happened.
People show stop a moment and reflect on why the GNU license exists in the first place.
But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won’t make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.
Of course rewriting them will introduce some new issues, but it will also eliminate classes of bugs from which there are definitely still a great many in old "stable" C code (bugs which are now being discovered and will presumably continue to be discovered at a much faster pace due to LLMs).
The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.
I don't think it is just an excuse; I believe that improving security is also a goal... but removing GPL code is clearly also part of their motivation :(
Eliminating some obscure bugs from C code is not worth intruducing a lot of new bugs. GNU coreutils have been used and polished for so long, that it would be far more effective just to fix the issues as they reveal right in the original code. If rewriting removes one kind of bugs while introducing another - then what's the whole point?
I cannot imagine obviously buggy code from 2020s being more secure than code that has been around since previous century. Again, even if Rust for real is a better solution for security reasons, the way it is being developed and shipped is not how one makes software more secure. Disregarding the license, uutils look like something pursuing hype, not strategical benefits.
load more comments
(8 replies)
The project hasn't had a stable release, and yes, it does certainly need more testing to uncover edge cases.
Yes, MIT bad, but one must not diss on the project just because it has been written in Rust.
The problem isn't the language. It's the cargo cult that surrounds it.
I see what you did there
I disagree with MIT License being bad. I agree on all other fronts of your statements.
MIT is terrible if it replaces current GPL projects. Companies will always provide their spyware infested proprietary version of the exact same thing which have one or two additional features, making open source software always behind rhe propruetary counterparts. See: Chromium->Google Chrome, Aosp->any Android os vendor
Great projects have used MIT without any issues. Godot for instance, which may also be needed, I don't know if games made by godot could be closed source if it would use gnu license for instance.
Godot didn't replace an existing broadly used GPL game engine, so this is irrelevant.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)
I love rust, but I absolutely hate how it's used to jam MIT licenses where GPL belongs. Maybe it's time we consider using corpos tools against them, and use an AI to rewrite GNU utils to Rust, so that people can continue contributing to Rust while not feeding corps?
Edit: Though licensing AI software is iffy at best, you've got to own the copyright to something to licence it: Non-human productions are legally non-copyrightable. Also it might be better to just have humans do it anyway. The intent of my message was just that maybe we ought to deprive MIT-licensed projects from FOSS-motivated developers by providing Rust GPL alternatives to MIT/corporate Rust projects
Isn't the MIT license independent of the choice of Rust?
Rust often ends up just being an excuse to rewrite software with corporate-friendly licenses without copyleft. That's not necessarily true though, Lemmy itself is Rust & licenced under AGPL
You can use rust and still use the GPL.
My issue isn't with Rust as a language at all, I quite enjoy making my projects with it. My issue is with "Rust rewrites" of GPL software, only to have those rewrites be licensed under MIT/Apache. To me it signifies that these rewrites were never about the safety features of Rust, but that they are attempts at pushing out the GPL
When i'm in the most unnecessary competition and my opponent is rust coreutils:
People will blame Rust for the incompetence of Ubuntu team to adopt the uutils as default prematurely.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Im so happy work stopped using ubuntu server after last time.
Also how the heck do you break cp of all things.
I dont want to experiment with core utils.
Give me 10 minutes and I'll write you a cp that is completely fucked.
cp $1 $2
cp of all things
cp might sound simple because its a very necessary thing for an OS to do, but there's quite some technical depth to each of the core utils, if it were simple people would just be pumping out coreutil practice projects just like they do with "generic CRUD web app 5000"
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
128 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
66708 readers
120 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
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS