I never would have thought that he would be the voice of reason, in any language other than C (ANSI C -not C++). He may just be one of the best C programmers around, and has always been a ferocious advocate for it.
Rust is not my language, but it really seems to be a legitimate addition to the system programming toolbox, and that seems to be his PoV.
I liked the interview. I haven't always been a fan of his pithy approach to interpersonal relationships, but I have always had tremendous respect for his technical acumen. This has given me a bit more personal respect for him.
I don’t think he is particularly pithy to be honest. You have to realise that he conducts all of his day to day activities in public.
I have seen program managers do far worse than his most famous rants in meetings while working for Fortune 500 companies.
This is something I keep trying to point out to people. That doesn't mean that Linus is any kind of role model in this way - but people point to open-source interactions as especially "toxic" while ignoring (or being ignorant of) the fact that things are often _far worse_ behind closed doors. The differences being that 1) they're behind closed doors and therefore rarely seen, and 2) calling out a rude interactions in open-source projects is unlikely to get you fired or on the wrong exec's shitlist.
> people point to open-source interactions as especially "toxic" while ignoring (or being ignorant of) the fact that things are often _far worse_ behind closed doors
Can we admit that those close doors are super toxic places then? The claim is not supposed to be that open source is the most toxic place ever, just that it is toxic. That there are close source companies that are cesspits is a fact too - but that is an independent claim.
There are also many close source workplaces where things are NOT toxic or are less toxic.
You are not wrong, but this is far from obvious for most people. Most companies have strong PR maintaining appearances for people without a lot of experience. So while this is an independent claim I think it’s still to remind that.
> This is something I keep trying to point out to people.
I agree with your comment and would love to read more if you've blogged more about this somewhere?
Just because you've seen worse doesn't excuse it. Everyone who behaves this way should find ways to deal with their emotions in a healthy way that doesn't negatively affect others.
I think it's also cultural. British for example are very worried abou sub-text and saving face. West coast americans are more worried about coming across as positive and use superlatives that other cultures find exagerated.
Nordic and Central Europe cultures value 'straight talk' and saying what you will do, and doing what you say you will do. Generally when you ask for feedback you are expected to have a thick skin when professors/experts review your work.
I am not excusing abuse but I am pointing out that it is misguided to look at one work culture through the lens of another.
This is discriminatory to cultures you arbitrarily believe are lesser.
That behaviour sucks and is not acceptable. Sorry that you have had shitty coworkers in corporate America. That’s not what the world is.
[dead]
> It is
Emotional developers rarely rise to such power, because it is not. None of the bluster matters today, much less after he's gone.
It's funny how people point to how well adjusted we are today when in the west the well adjusted people have managed to do nothing of note, unless you count destroying corporation after corporation.
It's the assholes like Elon Musk that have kept the rockets flying while the well adjusted planes are falling out of the sky.
I thought he got way too much stick for that. Most of the rants all seemed to be at senior people who should have known better trying to break ironclad, well established rules that exist for a very good reason (e.g. "we don't break userspace mauro").
Look at the rants without understanding the context (which, frankly, most people don't - kernel development is pretty arcane) and the rants look worse than they really were.
This.
I love the way Linus rants in public.
When I was 24, I got a rant in private from PG, and it was pretty shocking at the time:
"You guys just set a new all-time record in losing by being based in SF and skipping events at YC. I doubt it will ever be surpassed. Peter Thiel was speaking today. When he described the kind of companies he liked to invest in, he was describing Jobpic. So after his speech I jumped up and excitedly told him about you. He was very intrigued by the idea. I went off to find you to introduce you, and you're not here.
At least now I'll have a really good story when I tell each new batch that they'll miss out if they live in the city.
--pg"
3 notes:
1. He was right, my cofounder should have been there (I couldnt be there).
2. The hyperbole made it memorable. My friends still tease me about this "playing hard to get with Peter Thiel? Ballsy"
3. The only sad thing is people are afraid to be like this in public, and put on a more politically correct face in public. Linus has had the guts to be the same person in public and private. Something worth emulating.
Related read: https://breckyunits.com/assholes.html
These days, not having met Peter Thiel looks like you dodged a bullet.
(Also perhaps worth recognizing that the guy berating you for not patronizing YC is a founder of YC. I also think you're a loser for not buying my product ;) )
I disagree with you on PT (I love someone with the confidence to follow their own model of the world, rather than follow the crowd), but I agree with you that I need to buy some of your furniture! That's some beautiful stuff (https://www.aechairs.com/my-furniture/)! How long have you been woodworking?
Causing massive harm to other people because it might possibly make the number in one's own bank account slightly larger seems like pretty miserable behavior to me.
> I agree with you that I need to buy some of your furniture! That's some beautiful stuff! How long have you been woodworking?
Thanks! About 8 or 9 years. I recently got into chairmaking. I haven't sold any yet, but my goal through the end of the year is to make a handful and then try to sell some at local maker markets in 2025.
> About 8 or 9 years.
Awesome! There's another woodworker I follow (https://nondot.org/sabre/Woodworking.html) who is also a pretty good programmer ;).
> Causing massive harm to other people because it might possibly make the number in one's own bank account slightly larger seems like pretty miserable behavior to me.
I disagree with a ton of what PT says/does, but I respect how he always come about things in an original way--he's got his own model of the universe that he follows. From what I can tell he also is always learning, and willing to update his model when shown wrong.
Most people just accept the model of the universe given to them by authorities.
It is impossible to be an expert on everything. In fact it is really hard to be an expert on one single thing. At some point you have to either yield to the experts, or be wrong. It's a really stupid thing to choose to be wrong, instead of trust the experts.
This is why we have careers and specialties ("authorities", to give it another word). When you break your arm, you don't go learn bone medicine from scratch while your arm turns gangrenous. That would be stupid. You go to the doctor because fixing broken bones is their specialty and not yours. Similarly, climate change is staring us in the face, and Thiel is going "nah, screw the experts, I know better" and spending his resources to send us straight into the surface of the sun. That's stupid. There's nothing to respect in his bold, willful ignorance causing harm to everyone on the planet.
Pretty wild to love someone who does what they believe in regardless of how insane it is.
> pithy approach to interpersonal relationships
These things are highly contextual and highly subjective. Culture is very different around the world.
There are highly manipulative and malevolent individuals who know how to behave the right way when it comes to political correctness but lack objective directness that actually improves the situation long term
This is absolutely true. It's also difficult to judge how much otherwise obnoxious developers take advantage of "niceness" from outside the zoo looking in. These situations were almost necessarily interpreted out of context without catching up on years of mailing list culture.
I worked for a Japanese company that employed some of the top engineers and scientists in the world.
The Japanese don't really like yelling and screaming, but I have watched managers reduce subordinates to tears, with a few firm words (literally).
Also, some of these top-shelf engineers could be "pithy." They didn't suffer fools, and had the attitude that if you were working directly with them, it was assumed that you were at a level that would not interfere with their work (like having to constantly stop and explain stuff).
Their end-product was really good, but it took a very strident culture to get there.
I assume that the Linux Kernel is just such a product. I can certainly understand the stress on making sure that anything that goes in there, needs to be absolutely top-notch. Not just in code Quality, but also in the mindset of the people submitting it.
I will also say that, if we want top be top performers, ourselves, we need to be willing to be in situations, where we could be yelled at, told our work is shite, etc.
It would be nice, if we were gentler than those than go before us, but this type of thing tends to self-regulate. If a top performer is so toxic that no one can work with them, they can get shown the door. That was not always the case, but I think it is increasingly so, these days.
But that doesn't mean that top performers are required to coddle; maybe just not outright abuse.
On a somewhat related note, I've been enjoying watching Slow Horses, and the Jackson Lamb character brings back memories.
Rust's main problem is that libc is effectively the system API on POSIX. There's a major barrier to interacting with other libraries, particularly safely. There's also a ton of C++ libraries, like Qt, which aren't easy to do FFI bindings for.
The kernel has its own set of API primitives because it can't use user space libraries. That means the ecosystem is tiny, and rust can bring its unique advantage when experimenting with secondary languages in the kernel.
> Rust's main problem is that libc is effectively the system API on POSIX.
True, that is what makes things harder for Rust in practice.
But interestingly, theoretically speaking it's more C's problem rather than Rust's - a legacy effect originating from the UNIX-C co-evolution. Good design would command a stricter separation of concerns/sub-systems (some LISP machine people will disagree, and I say it because there are a ton of them on HN, of course).
A huge chunk of C's problems in the wild is due to the unfortunate string conventions and library. Just fixing that alone, would make C much more robust in practice. Imagine a libc with actually sane strings, and a tiny tweak to the language so "some string" produces such a sane string, whatever it may be. Maybe an extension could be @"sane string".
> his pithy approach to interpersonal relationships
He deliberately worked on improving.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/09/linus-torvalds-apolo...
Good to see that he's still optimistic about Rust in the kernel. There was a small crowd when the drama was happening suggesting that Rust devs should just go write their own Linux-compatible kernel somewhere else which I found... insane. It's better to iterate and improve existing systems IMO.
> There was a small crowd when the drama was happening suggesting that Rust devs should just go write their own Linux-compatible kernel somewhere else which I found... insane.
One of the most important skills I found in open source development is separating technical arguments from religious arguments, and choosing to simply ignore the latter. You can spend all your time having the religious debates and feeling very productive while actually getting absolutely nothing done. Learning to recognize the distinction and, crucially, not engage at all when someone is coming at you with a religious argument is incredibly valuable for anyone who is or wants to be in a leadership-ish role in that kind of environment. You've got better things to do with your time than explain to someone why building a whole separate kernel is a stupid idea.
"Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition. The Python Software Foundation is an example. They have multiple former directors banned or resigning. They've defunded African Pycons that won't embrace certain ideologies. PSF employees and work group members are being purged of anyone not fully on board with the new ruling party. The discussion forums are censored and long-term contributors are afraid to post.
In general, in democratic organizations it is a failing strategy to not engage in arguments or to boycott elections. It is a recipe for an imbalance that is almost impossible to correct later.
So, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to not engage at all.
Really curious, what ideology did the defunded African Pycons fail to embrace?
It's not just Africa. There were discussions about withholding community support from China and Pakistan as well. It's really just a question about what part of the mission statement is the most important. Do you promote the Python language in places that don't meet your diversity objectives? That is a reasonable question.
However, one side's failure to engage means that the other viewpoint has won and is now driving everyone else out. Nothing new, just a classic purge of heretics.
Back to my original point: It is bad advice to not engage in the discussions. Unbalanced outcomes end up tearing a community apart.
-----
"The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers."
It's often queer stuff that gets called "ideology" by it's opponents so I'm guessing it's this
https://pythonafrica.blogspot.com/2023/12/an-open-letter-to-...
> We understand that the argument against support for DjangoCon Africa was that the host country, Tanzania, is not a safe place for the LGBTQIA+ community.
That's not as simple as "woke ideology" though. If you don't find the convention, Africa doesn't get a pycon. If you do fund it, you're funding something that excludes queer people.
Without knowing any details, I guess they should have been more eager to fund it. then at least some people would benefit
Yah I'm sure the African pycon was planning to ask every attendee if they are LGBT...
You do know this kind of thing has zero to do with Python? Nobody is having sex at pycon? They can just do what everyone else does, and not make that the most important thing in the world while at the stupid convention.
Like personally I think logging should end, so can I just make this position a requirement that everyone else has to agree with to attend Pycon? It makes no sense, as it isn't related to the topic of the convention. I think that is why it gets labeled as an ideology.
I don't have the broader context (like the exact situation for LGBTQIA+ people in Tanzania), but...
> Yah I'm sure the African pycon was planning to ask every attendee if they are LGBT...
You're passing judgement on people you don't know, while you remain in a privileged and ignorant position. Many trans/NB/intersex people could be easily identified as such, based on their appearance/voice/etc. Even if the concern was sexuality alone (or other characteristics you could mask/hide), nobody wants to live out their life in a closet - that's also the entire point of a conference: to go there and talk to other people, to feel safe while doing so, to be able to remain yourself.
The problem space is way more nuanced than "just don't have gay sex in public lol".
> while you remain in a privileged and ignorant position
I think Python devs such as you and I are much more privileged than the average African.
The problem is that this stops being "ideology" when it starts interfering with the operation of Pycon. For example, if other people have to travel to the country the PyCon is in, and they are in any way gay (and yes, there are bound to be gay people in Python's development community), they're risking arrest just to go. Strip away the moralizing and it's still extremely problematic to put an African PyCon in a country with such authoritarian[0] laws.
Going back to Rust for Linux (the actual thing we were talking about), you cannot cleanly separate the "religious" and "technical" sides of the argument. Rust doesn't provide safety advantages when calling into C code unless you inform the type system of what the memory safety requirements of that C code are. Otherwise you have to litter your code with unsafe blocks everywhere to manually call into C, which makes it a lot closer to C code. Safe Rust requires you to know and understand what the C code is doing, or have good documentation related to that code, and keep your bindings up to date when the C code changes. That's both technical and religious - insamuch as Rust demands good docs and some subset of the C people don't want to provide them.
[0] Yes, banning homosexuality is inherently authoritarian. It's literally the first thing any authoritarian does, to check if society's liberal reflexes still work or not.
Yeah the punishment in Tanzania for homosexuality is only life imprisonment, while only 10% of the population reports being tolerant of someone with a different orientation -one of the lowest in Africa- while the countries largest city tortured gay people in 2019 as part of its persecution of them, no big deal (sarcasm)
At some point we should say they are deeply hostile to the large and well respected portion of the python community who are queer, if they want to exclude them for who they are then we can also decide not to run a pycon there.
First of all - people are having sex at pycon. People are having sex at every convention. You might not be - but when groups of humans assemble, some of them are going to up, it's what humans do.
Do you think maybe a technical convention should be about the technical stuff? A place where technical things are the only focus and the other stuff doesn't mater - a place where technical merit rules and drives the discussion?
If so, wouldn't it make sense to hold that convention somewhere that allows everyone to display their technical merit rather than in a country that will go as far as to look at visitors social media an potentially jail them over something that has nothing to do with python?
Would you be ok with it if the convention for your technical expertise was held at a convention center owned by a logging company who didn't allow you entry to the building because of your comment here? The convention isn't going to engage in politics, and by not considering such things they've effectively banned you from participation for non-technical reasons. Wouldn't it be better if they held it across the street at the convention center that explicitly supported the right of disgusting ideals like anti-logging (but is otherwise no different)?
It turns out that sometimes defending basic rights of your organization's membership is in fact a requirement for creating a situation where technical merit rules. By not doing so, you participate in a situation where non-technical considerations are part of what tech and what engineers are allowed to make it have a major influence on the technical direction of your thing.
> People are having sex at every convention.
That's besides the point. People are not at a Python convention for sex. Having a convention in a different culture doesn't mean accepting all the moral tenets of that culture.
You're effectively cancelling the entire African and Asian Continents. I'm failing to see in putting barriers to what is the best gateway for economical progress for a lot of people in our time.
More discussion and details can be found in the HN post for that open letter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38542330
> Africa doesn't get a pycon. If you do fund it, you're funding something that excludes queer people.
Defund all pycons from 80% of the world then. Because that's the vast majority of Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and a lot of the rest of the world.
This will just result in forks and fragmentation in the long term, as opposed to having to work with and being more accepting of "queers".
that's how you alienate these people on your own side. at the same time, helping out an oppressing side simply means that their position and ability to oppress grows.
[flagged]
> Because it is. Why would I even care about "queerness" (whatever it actually means) in an open-source project for a sound recorder or video player or game or what have you?
Part of what "queerness" means here is "Could our conference invite a technical speaker who happened to be gay safely? Or would the speaker be in legal danger?"
Many organizations are committed to non-discrimination of various sorts. People's race, religion, or orientation shouldn't prevent them from participating in a conference. And this is often a written organizational policy in the US and Europe.
And if such an organization decides to host a conference in a country where (like Tanzania) being gay might subject some of their members to life imprisonment, some of those people are going to ask, "Hey, don't we have a written, official policy against doing that?"
Now, the complicating factor here is that large parts of Africa criminalize being gay, and obviously the Python community would like to hold some conferences in Africa. But at the same time, they presumably don't want to risk any of their members being subject to life in prison.
If you consider the promotion of human rights and boycott of countries violating them an ideology, then this is an ideology I can get behind. Sure, you might not care about discrimination against queer people because you're not one of them, just like you might not care about racism against people of color because you're white - but just because it doesn't concern you directly doesn't mean discrimination isn't an issue.
The writing in that blog post also posits some questions in a manner that doesn’t seem all that good:
> What counts as “safety”? Which places in the world are truly safe for LGBTQIA+ community? How much of a city, or state, or country needs to be LGBTQIA+ hostile for the whole of it to be declared unworthy of PSF support?
Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania
> Homosexuality in Tanzania is a socially taboo topic, and same-sex sexual acts (even in private and consensual) are criminal offences, punishable with life imprisonment.
While I have no idea what counts as “truly safe”, that’s definitely not it! I wouldn’t want any of my friends who happen to be queer to go to a place where they might face life imprisonment for the crime of… existing?
As far as exclusion goes, that’s a pretty clear case of that, a different venue would be better. Some people might say that if a change of venue isn’t possible (for some reason?) then that means that everyone would miss out on the event if it couldn’t happen, at which point people will probably have different opinions about whether taking a stance on inclusion is worth it or not, depending on their views.
Calling it an “ideology” might be unconventional, but maybe not entirely wrong as far as the semantics go (beliefs shared by a group of people) - the same way my “ideology” would be that women also deserve to vote, don’t need to cover their faces with garments if they don’t feel like it etc. The ideology of human rights, I guess.
>> "Not engaging at all" allows the engaging group to completely take over and expunge their opposition.
I agree with this point, though. Except that in any conflict you should choose yourself on which side you are on, sometimes the engaging group might be right.
Can’t comment more on this particular case, just on the linked article and what I read.
According to Merriam Webster the definition of an ideology is one of the following
> a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
> the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
> a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
I am not sure how it could not be an ideology. Being against racism is an ideological idea as well.
All things in moderation, even, and especially, good things. Righteous fervor has killed more than disease and famine combined.
This is motte and bailey. Currently you go into your motte and talk about human rights and racism (apparently queer is a race), and people get removed from projects (or jobs) because they didn't get the pronoun of the unicorn right. Oh, and the hundreds of workshops that explain you how to check your privilege. It has usually not much to do with human rights in the western world.
The case with the convention is slightly different, but again one has to ask why they actually defunded it. Because the country they live in is bad? They were not asked to fund Tanzania.
PS.:
> might not care about racism against people of color because you're white
You may of course assume whatever you want, but why do you get so specific instead of just mentioning racism. That does indeed sound racist to me.
> As I said why would I even care about those in this context?
See "South Africa, Apartheid, Boycott" for an idea of why organizations might choose to withhold sponsorship for activities in a country that restricts the rights and liberties of certain subgroups.
The Python people are not going to be the ones to precipitate change in Tanzania. No one organization is going to be the one.
But it's not outside the realm of possibility that a coordinated effort of many organizations might, and you have to start somewhere.
The early SA boycotters were right in their actions, and eventually helped accomplish worthy and historic change. Contrasting their actions with your own choices or inactions can be a lot of pressure on people who want to do the right thing.
Taking the "why would I even care about those in this context?" approach can be pragmatic and reasonable, or it can be enabling and cruel. It depends on your priorities and perspective. Yours may differ from theirs.
I'm responding only to the posts in this thread, I know nothing more broadly about Tanzania or DjangoCon.
>The early SA boycotters were right in their actions, and eventually helped accomplish worthy and historic change. Contrasting their actions with your own choices or inactions can be a lot of pressure on people who want to do the right thing.
Anyone who uses South Africa as anything but a cautionary tale of how good intentions can kill millions is an idiot.
Everyone would have been better off had apartheid stayed.
Instead we got a rather mediocre country not much better or worse than Argentina turn into the murder, rape and HIV capital of the world.
> Everyone would have been better off had apartheid stayed.
That's indefensible.
But yes, today's SA is also a mess.
I don't know why you bring up Argentina, but I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that you have never been to either country.
I have been to both, and have friends in (and from) both.
You know nothing of which you speak, I suspect, but your words sound dangerously close to the talking points of some astonishingly empty people. Could be worth some thought.
[flagged]
Africa's made up of a lot of countries and some of them have kept homosexuality legal, so the plan was presumably to move the conference somewhere else.
There's even a Wikipedia page for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa. Just pick somewhere that's not yellow or orange and has a sizeable tech industry.
> So what’s the actual plan then? Defund Africa until they change their minds and accept queer ideology?
That's the plan.
You're being downvoted because the moral universalists can't actually bring themselves to say that, but yes. They don't believe in direct violence unless they feel confident in hiding it from the public, so the moral universalists have to use other forms of warfare like economic combat. Just mentioning any of this makes the moral universalists very angry.
Rather that refuting these obvious facts they manipulate and pervert structural systems to achieve their deranged goals. On HN, that's achieved by flagging and downvote brigading.
Oh no! Some people find it inappropriate to hold a conference where the state apparatus has the legal framing to arrest all the non-cis attendees!
This must mean they are cowards, and waging warfare, and hiding behind ... something? Get a grip, sometimes holding a conference somewhere just doesn't make sense.
At the end of the day you're either excluding people who feel uncomfortable attending due to legal risk, or locals who maybe can't easily travel long distances.
I don't think it's obvious to be honest, but then I freely admit to not understanding queer culture. Qatar hosted the World Cup a few years ago and the sky didn't fall in.
I think the original comment probably had an implicit [ignore isolated actors] as part of the context. Any organisation has to be wary of alternative mission statements overriding their actual mission statement and a failure to engage when that happens generally presages trouble.
Indeed, and additionally, I was specifically talking about technical issues, not organizational issues. "Should we adopt this tech or not?" kind of stuff. Examples I'm sure we can all relate to: desktop environments, systemd, pulseaudio, programming languages, github/lab vs mailing lists. Lots of religious debates come up to separate out from legitimate technical concerns.
Organizational issues are a whole other ballgame. I can see how my original comment was not specific enough about this.
Agreed. And since I agree, I wonder what those "ideologies" were
Tanzania has life imprisonment for homosexuality, surveys show it has 10% of its population tolerate queer people, and has been committing human rights abuses against the queer community for years as part of its authoritarianism. I think its fair to not run a pycon in a country that is explicitly extremely hostile and dangerous for a wide and respected portion of the python community.
It doesn't really matter. It could have been any contentious difference in strategic direction. The outcome would have been the same. People need to engage or face inevitable takeover and exclusion.
"Certain idealogies" like communism or what? It's hard to understand what's at stake here if you're using euphemism like this. It sounds like there is conflict over a specific action or policy, what is it?
It's a broad conflict, not just a specific action. These blog posts give a flavor of what is going on:
* https://ntoll.org/article/psf-woe/ * https://ntoll.org/article/victorian-python-allegory/
Sorry for using vague terminology. I don't personally keep up with PSF dramas. My point was about communities in general, not just the PSF in particular.
To be fair, the dominant group itself also uses vague terminology. The PSF director's linked-in account says, "I'm motivated by the intersection of technology and social justice." Their social media accounts are more specific though: https://x.com/baconandcoconut?lang=en
It's hard to look at a situation from the outside, and I genuinely have no clue about the real situation in the Python community. All I know from those blog posts is that this guy has been bitterly claiming that he is going to leave the Python community for six years straight.
If he doesn't like it so much, he should stop writing about it. I'm sorry, but I went into those blog posts with an open mind, and all I found was a long list of personal complaints with relatively few details about the actual situation.
The thing about Rust people is that they talk a lot more than they do.
Letting them talk and completely ignoring them is the easiest way to keep getting work done.
The issues with politics are different. Don't let activists in positions of power is a very good rule of thumb every organization should follow.
[dead]
While I'm not sure I agree with the arguments, I don't think the arguments for starting over from scratch are insane: https://drewdevault.com/2024/08/30/2024-08-30-Rust-in-Linux-...
The core argument is that attempts to convert the Linux kernel to Rust are burning out the people putting in that work. The choice might not be between Rust in Linux or a new kernel, but between burned out devs failing to put Rust in Linux or a new Linux-compatible kernel written from scratch in Rust.
I think this will happen sooner than we think. Lots of not-old people with a lot of talents out there and who doesn't like "get off my lawn" culture of the Kernel.
They key aspect will be importing was has gone wrong in the Rust and kernel community cultures.
There is no such thing as a Linux-compatible kernel. There's only Linux. Linux is not even compatible with itself, it's only compatible with its major version number.
The argument may have been 'go pound sand', that's what it means.
I'd say that isn't true. The Linux version number is somewhat arbitrary, and does not denote incompatibility. And from the view of userspace, the Linux ABI is rather backwards compatible.
Also, WSL1 and some BSDs are examples of Linux compatibility.
Yes, the driver interface may or may not change, nobody knows where and when. That's a feature of the Linux versioning scheme and driver HAL policy. You can roll your own userspace-Linux-compatible kernel and it's going to be a toy until you develop drivers for it, which won't ever happen.
> Also, WSL1 and some BSDs are examples of Linux compatibility.
Yes, and they suffer from either performance or lack of drivers, hence WSL2 running a real Linux with some dark magic to share hardware and network, sort of. Surely you don't mean this as an argument in favor of rolling your own Linux-compatible kernel?
Linux is not semantically versioned and has the same versioning policy as Chrome or Firefox: all version updates are minor updates and we just increment the version whenever we like. This is because of Linux's strict no-breaking-UAPI policy.
[dead]
It's way better to iterate and improve existing systems. But you need to do so in the context of those projects: in Linux when a maintainer wants to make a change to a system they are maintaining, they have to provide patches for other systems which are affected by the change. So if Rust lands in any section of the kernel, then the maintainers of related systems will either have to:
A: never make any changes to the system they are maintaining, or
B: learn Rust.
Neither of those options seem reasonable, so it's a difficult problem. So if the contingent of people who want to see Rust in the kernel is large enough it may be better for them to fork the kernel, as it's unlikely that advocacy will have enough of an effect.
There is no reason anyone smart enough to work in the kernel could not learn Rust, C++, zig, Java, Scheme, or whatever language you can dream of. However the above list is far longer than anyone has time to learn and so the kernel should limit the languages allowed just so that the list of what you need to know is reasonable. (I haven't looked at linux code in 20 years, but back then you needed to know C, sh, and make - you probably forgot that make is a language but it is/was critical) It is reasonable to say that all kernel programmers need to know rust from this day on. It would not be reasonable to say any language is allowed. It would be reasonable in 30 years to discover there is almost no C left and so rewrite the rest and ban C (I won't bet money on that happening but it is reasonable)
It doesn't seem reasonable to expect a developer to learn a new programming language? Staying on top of constantly changing tools is part of the job.
Why? Linux is 30 years old by now. When did they switch from g89 to a g11? Like last year or something.
Imagine the churn if they would have changed their ways whenever there was some new hot thing.
And this is applicable to most devs too.
You forgot about the third option: specify "stable" and properly documented API boundaries in relevant subsystems. Developers of Rust drivers would have to rely only on those APIs, in turn, if subsystem maintainers want to change those APIs, they would have to synchronize it with Rust developers.
The problem is that some subsystem maintainers do not want to even properly document existing APIs (sic!) and want to reserve the right to willy-nilly hack some changes into "their" subsystems without discussing it with other stakeholders.
best way to compromise the world is to become a linux maintainer. May take a couple of years but if you are state-sponsored, you (with the help of your team) can contribute so many great patches you'll become respected within a year, take control of a subsystem in a few.
I believe this is the video that the article summarizes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM_8UOPFpqE
My prediction: after Linus dies linux will be like Yugoslavia after Tito.
Hopefully with much less bloodshed, but yea, when benevolent dictators die, there are rarely people who step up to replace them who are also benevolent.
Easy, we wake up one of Theo de Raadt's clones to take over.
I want to posit a new "law" like "Godwin's Law," which would roughly state "Any sufficiently advanced discussion about operating systems will devolve into a C vs Rust debate."
My posit is that in 20 years, rust is as dead as scala and c is only used in legacy systems that cannot be viably updated economically.
Is Scala actually dead?
The next Linux King will be happily merging pull requests until one day his keyboard will begin to speak to him...
"Arthas..."
Someone should train an LLM on all the kernel documentation, code, mailing lists, etc.
He has a red stapler on his desk I think
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Wasn't this posted here a few days ago?
AFAICT there where (at least) two recent events where Torvalds had a chat with Hohndel.
I) KubeCon and Open Source Summit China (Hong Kong, 2024-08-23)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41355731 – posted to HN on 2024-08-26, 123 comments.
II) Open Source Summit Europe (Vienna, 2024-09-16)
I.e. this post. This talk was also referred in an article from The Register, and that was posted on HN about 23 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593275 (11 comments)
It also looks like the current post (i.e. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41559404) was originally submitted four days ago, and then reached the front page today via HN’s second-chance pool[0].
(This talk from Open Source Summit Europe has been submitted a bunch of times, but some of the submissions yielded very few comments.)
[0] See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 for more info about the second-chance pool.
Welcome to HN.