At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.

What are your thoughts abouth this?

    • shirro ( shirro@aussie.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Waiting for Canonical to up sell proprietary utils features by subscription. Ubuntu’s regular release cycles were brilliant in 2004 when there weren’t a lot of alternatives but why does it still exist?

  • ipkpjersi ( ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml ) 
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that’s a good thing, but if it’s done because it’s MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.

  • merthyr1831 ( merthyr1831@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    My scepticism is that this should’ve been done within the coreutils project, or at least very closely affiliated. This isn’t an area of the linux technical stack that we should tolerate being made distro-specific, especially when the licensing is controlled by a single organisation that famously picks and chooses its interpretation of “FOSS” to suit its profit margins.

    On a purely technical level, GNU coreutils should very seriously consider moving to rust if only to counter alternatives before it’s too late. While these utilities work well in C (and usually stay secure thanks to the Unix philosophy limiting the project scope), FOSS projects are continuing to struggle with finding new contributors as younger devs are more likely to use modern systems languages like Go and Rust. Not to mention that any project using Rust as a marketing tool will appeal to anyone rightfully concerned about hardening their system.

  • solardirus ( solardirus@slrpnk.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    On the one hand, Toybox exists. So, the non-copyleft license bs isn’t new. On the other hand, toybox afaik isnt aiming to treat “deviations with GNu as bugs”. Almost feels hostile-takeover-ish though I know that almost certinly isn’t the idea behindbit.

    If this ends in proprietization bs I’m going to throw hands.