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
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?
Apple is ok with GPLv2 Bash. Linux kernel is GPLv2, GNU coreutils are GPLv3. Systemd is curiosly also GPLv2. Striping GNU out of GNU/Linux might not be so innocent.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
cpandsudoimplementation that they forked off of an open one?Apple is ok with GPLv2 Bash. Linux kernel is GPLv2, GNU coreutils are GPLv3. Systemd is curiosly also GPLv2. Striping GNU out of GNU/Linux might not be so innocent.
deleted by creator
I understand the sentiment.
The move to a permissive license opens the door for these tools to possibly become closed source one day.
deleted by creator
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.
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?
This is what it’s all about. We all know this.
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
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-rsrollout and stick to GNU Coreutils for this release.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.
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.
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?
Damn bruh, I didn’t know that too.