“Should we give (Rust for Linux) a try for this coming merge window?”

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202205070056.ACC3C3D@keescook/

by mustache_kimono • 4 years ago

24 14 4 years ago

lore.kernel.org

tonetheman2• 4 years ago

There should be a countdown somewhere.

Days before the entire kernel is written in rust.

I feel for the kernel devs who know just plain old unsecure/horrible C ;)

You guys had better start learning rust.

lumost2• 4 years ago

It takes a new grad software engineer between 1 and 3 years to master a programming language. Why do you believe that knowing any particular programming language is a barrier? In 2022 it’s unusual for experienced engineers not to know multiple languages.

tonetheman2• 4 years ago

I figure they can too actually. :)

It was more a comment on the religious/naked fanboy-ism of rust. (like apple... like java... like vb...)

I think the dude that posted the message is way up there in the kernel tree. So I am assuming he/she knows what they are doing.

But it would be funny to have a countdown.

Commodore63• 4 years ago

Rust is quite a challenging language.

thesuperbigfrog2• 4 years ago

Would it make sense to re-design or revise POSIX to match Rust conventions first?

Much of POSIX design is strongly linked to C and the Unix philosophy and conventions.

Rust follows different conventions so implementing POSIX in Rust seems like an impedance mismatch (see https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180123-00/?p=97...)

Edit: downvotes, but no replies? If you disagree, why? I would love to hear your thoughts.

HippoBaro• 4 years ago

POSIX is not linked to C. POSIX is a specification and that can be implemented in any language.

What POSIX is is outside of the control of Linux. Linux wants to be POSIX compliant for compatibility. Changing POSIX would not make sense.

Luker88• 4 years ago

Is rust in Linux a good opportunity to review the Linux licensing?

For example, go Gplv2+ instead of just GPLv2?

Or maybe just forcing developers to subscribe their DCO (Developers Certificate Of Origin)

I remember a lot of kernel developers signing additional declarations to clear up some licensing issue, I remember it was not all of them and can't find the reference.

Basically any cleanup on the licensing side, so that you know that rust also means "the correct way"? Sure, it will take decades, but at least you would not be stuck with current "gplv2-only-dco-maybe-additional-guarantees"

Can someone @Greg or even @Linus on this?

mustache_kimono• 4 years ago

FWIW, Rust has a strong "MIT or Apache" culture. These contributions to the kernel are "MIT or Apache," because what if the BSDs want to use these cool language bits for their OS?

Doubt GPLv2+ has much resonance here.

phendrenad22• 4 years ago

What do you mean by GPL2+ exactly? I've never heard of this.

“Should we give (Rust for Linux) a try for this coming merge window?”

Related Stories