While Linux 7.0 is the next kernel version solely over Linus Torvalds’ numbering preference, there is a notable symbolic change that was sent in overnight for this new kernel merge window: formally concluding the “Rust experiment” with upstream kernel developers now in acceptance that Rust for the Linux kernel is here to stay.
The patch was talked about back in December that the Rust experiment is over and it’s here to stay. There are already uses for Rust in production environments, some Linux distributions shipping with Rust kernel code, and millions of Android devices also using it.
Okay fine, guess I really do need to learn (the rest of) Rust now.
🦀🦀🦀🦞🦀🦀🦀
Keep your openclaw away from linux you weirdo
🦐
Can someone explain to me why Rust has been so controversial for the GNU/Linux kernel? One thing that I personally don’t like is that the equivalent Rust-made (equivalent) GNU tools are licensed under MIT (or Apache? - something permissive like that) instead of GPL. If they were under GPL, I’d be more than happy. But since the kernel is under GPL regardless of C or Rust, what is the reason for the backlash? Sounds like a very promising language indeed.
Most common reason I saw was not wanting mixed languages across the code base.
If you’re a Rust maintainer and you’re given a C patch (or reverse) then what do you do with it/confirm it’s not bringing other bugs.
Other issues are that it’s heavier, hurts compatibility, and doesn’t function like C.
This is a very valid reason, indeed.
One big practical criticism is that it requires a different compiler which is supported on far fewer platforms than GCC
From the perspective of somebody who’s actually hacked on Linux: Most Linux maintainers, like most programmers in general, are full of machismo stemming from the inherent difficulty of writing C. It is extremely difficult to write correct C and nobody can do it consistently, so those maintainers are heavily invested in the perception that they are skilled with C. Rust is much easier to write and democratizes kernel hacking, which is uncomfortable for older maintainers due to the standard teenagers-vs-parents social dynamics. Worse, adapting various kernel interfaces so that they are Rust-friendly has revealed that the pre- and postconditions of interface methods were not known before; there is existing sloppiness in the kernel’s internals which is only visible because of Rust-related cleanups.
Note that Linux is not a GNU project. GNU’s kernel project is GNU Herd. “GNU/Linux” refers to Linux userlands populated with GNU packages. It’s important not to be distracted by this; the kernel is agnostic towards userland and generally is compatible with any loadable executable that uses Linux’s public syscall interface, so the entire discussion of Rust in the kernel is separate from anything going on in userland.
Most siblings are wrong! PRs written in Rust can be rejected. There are already multiple non-C languages in the kernel. Rust is sufficiently available on the platforms where it will be required for building kernel. Maintainers are only added after they have shown themselves to be socially reliable and they can be removed by other maintainers if they are unresponsive. The only correct sibling points out that Rust is different.
Huge toolchain limits compatibility to other platforms.
Old people defending status quo.
What’s the advantage of GPL? As far as I’m aware MIT and Apache are both FOSS. But I’m new to this and still learning.
I don’t know what the big deal about Rust is. It seems like a cool language to me…
GPL enforces that all derivatives are FOSS and GPL as well. With permissive licenses, like MIT and Apache, a company is free to take the code, change/develop it further (or leave it as is) and make it closed-sourced without sharing anything with anyone. Regarding Rust, I am with you. Hence my question.
I see. That makes sense.
So if the kernel were written in a language licensed under GPL, for instance, Ubuntu would either have to ditch their proprietary blobs or make their own kernel?
If I had to guess, the only reason Rust might be controversial to some people is probably because they’re used to C and likely set in their ways. Someone who’s been programming since the 80s and doesn’t want to learn a new language cause maybe they’ll feel like a newbie again and can’t be smug about knowing every possible command in C anymore. Just a guess…
I’m pretty sure that code written in any language can be licensed under the GPL. That’s why I cannot understand the backlash against Rush for the Kernel.
MIT: do whatever you want, I don’t care
GPL: You can modify this freely, but your product must also be FOSS if you modify this.
Makes sense. Thanks!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Well, recalling from my experience with a lot of software products, they all tend to rust by around or shortly before version 7, so…
Protip: To keep your software project fresh, add a
0.in front of the version number.
That way it never gets old, plus you can make breaking changes at any time.I remember the time when Linux was stuck at 2.6.x.x, then came Linux for Workgroups 3.11.
Removed by mod
Why?
Removed by mod
I don’t see any future for seatbelts, and forcing such an ugly implement in cars might lead to problems.
Seatbelts will kill cars if it persists there long enough.
This but unironically
Haha I was fully expecting this comment when I wrote it. Hi fellow c/fuckcars lurker 👋🏽
I don’t see any future for C++ and forcing such ugly language in the kernel might lead to problems.
Lembot_0006 is to blame here more than C++. Zig/D/Hare/whatever would be much more straightforward and welcomed by the kernel community update from C. And Lembot_0006 is afraid of Rust.
C++ will kill Linux if it persists there long enough .
I don’t see any future for Zig/D/Hare and forcing such ugly language in the kernel might lead to problems.
Arcterus is to blame here more than Zig/D/Hare. Fennel would be much more straightforward and welcomed by the kernel community update from C. And Arcterus is afraid of Fennel.
Zig/D/Hare will kill Linux if it persists there long enough .
Sounds interesting:
Fennel is a programming language that brings together the simplicity, speed, and reach of Lua with the flexibility of a lisp syntax and macro system.
It does sound interesting, but I was mostly joking just to extend the copypasta.
I don’t know enough about programming to know whether it’s even suitable for writing a kernel. As far as I’m aware, Lua is mostly used for embedding scripts like in games, but the engines themselves are better written in C or Rust. I would assume a similar concept applies for writing a Kernel.
Perhaps it would have made more sense if I said Fortran or PS-Algol. It would have been more clear that it was a shitpost
I expect it’s not suited for kernel, yeah, but it sounds like a fun thing to try other than for kernel stuff
This has to be one of the most brain dead comments I’ve read about Linux…. ever.
I think you mean: it is one of the most brain dead comments you have ever hurd about Linux.
I guess you’re regularly committing to the kernel then?
Not one line, I tell you. Not a single one.
lmao
