- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not surprised by this.
The general attitude around R4L is that it’s largely unneeded and for every 1 person actively working against the project, there are 10 saying either “waiting and seeing if it works is the right decision” or “if rust is so good they should prove it.”
So as a R4L developer you’re expected by the community to fight an uphill battle with basically no support on your side.
We will likely keep having developers on that project continue to burn out and leave until the entire thing collapses unless the decision is made ahead of time to cancel the project.
Every time I read any news about Rust for Linux I leave disappointed by the entire kernel community.
I am with you on that last line. However, I remain more hopeful.
As long as Linus keeps merging code, Rust will eventually win. And by win I just mean that it will overcome the haters sufficiently to render their resistance futile.
There is only so much support infrastructure needed before large chunks of Rust can be committed ( at least on the driver side ). We are not so far away from that. Once real code starts to appear the “show me” will drive adoption elsewhere.
Take this case, it all started over a bit of code. The subsystem maintainer refuses to take it. But it does not require any changes to existing code. It just has to be merged.
Linus can take it directly. If he does that, the Rust folks can start to use it. The sub-system maintainer will lose in the end.
At some point, the battle will be lost by those trying to block Rust.
It all depends on Linus. We will see.
Take this case, it all started over a bit of code. The subsystem maintainer refuses to take it. But it does not require any changes to existing code. It just has to be merged. Linus can take it directly. If he does that, the Rust folks can start to use it. The sub-system maintainer will lose in the end. At some point, the battle will be lost by those trying to block Rust. It all depends on Linus. We will see.
Linus hasn’t been merging the necessary code, by virtue of supporting a maintainer who was very obviously trying to sabotage R4L; if Linus was going to stand up for R4L, this would have been the time.
If that does happen, I just hope there will be enough developers by then that can/will want to use it (as in, write rust code). Especially developers that can put up with the kernel process and its people.
Sima (Simona Vetter) quotes “Being toxic on the right side of an argument is still toxic, […]” while being toxic
Today, it is practically impossible to survive being a significant Linux maintainer or cross-subsystem contributor if you’re not employed to do it by a corporation. An interviewer to the Linux dev that’s mentioned in the article: “So what did you do next to try to convince the Linux kernel devs of the need for more focus on end-users?”
I appears as if Linux is a nest that is not built with a consistent set of user-centric principles. Instead, it seems that each part of the nest is built with a specific corporation or project in mind.
Assuming I’m right that Linux is built with project-based thinking and not product-based thinking, I do wonder what a user-centric Linux or another user-centric FLOSS OS would be like, an OS that is so smoothly built that users come to think of it not as an OS for tech-savvy people, but an obvious alternative that you install immediately after getting a computer.
If Linux is indeed built with project-based thinking, then I wonder why that is. The uncharitable explanation is that someone doesn’t want Linux to have a MacOS-like smooth and gorgeous experience. If you don’t think MacOS is smooth and gorgeous, I’ll address that.
I know some people have suffered immensely with Apple products not only because Apple builds devices that can’t be repaired, but because of things simply not working. However, there are many people who love Apple. That’s the kind of passionate advocacy that I would love to see in Linux, and not just around freedom and value-based judgements. I want Linux to be thought of as the least-friction tool for professional or recreational use. I want people to think of Linux as gorgeous and usable.
Of course, we can apply Hanlon’s razor to this situation (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [ignorance or lack of skill or practice].”). Managing a product is difficult. Managing a community is difficult. When the nest’s design is not built by a team constantly seeking to care about users, but instead by a bunch of users pecking into the nest until their corner is shaped the way they want, it’s not surprising to see a lack of user-centricity.
Don’t desktop environments e.g., GNOME, KDE, fit the bill here? Sure they have their problems, but they are IMO about as polished as macOS or Windows.
more so. windows is horrible and macos is distinctly average, it’s only selling point is their service/device integration which is the best
I agree that GNOME and KDE are gorgeous and very polished in many ways. However, I have had some problems in GNOME, Fedora, or Open Suse:
- fractional scaling is not immediately available in Fedora or OpenSuse, at least to users who don’t know how to use the terminal [Edit: Thanks, DannyBoys for pointing out that Ubuntu may have fractional scaling enabled by default and that experimental fractional scaling on GNOME can be activated, at a battery cost]
- the track-pad two-finger scrolling is painful (compared to a Mac) to me and to people who have used my laptop with Fedora or OpenSuse
- sometimes it’s hard for me to get software, especially outside of .debs. For example, in Fedora I had trouble getting Signal Desktop installed from a source that I felt comfortable with (maybe this speaks to my ignorance in how Fedora packages are set up and distributed more than the reality of insecurity, but even this is part of the issue: I couldn’t find any reassurance). To be fair, Open Suse gave me that reassurance, because I understood that YAST was somehow more directly tied to the source (I could be wrong, but that was my impression). However, YAST’s software download software is a far cry from the kind of UX that the GNOME Software app is or the Apple App Store.
Despite these problems, I do have to say that GNOME is absolutely gorgeous. It’s precisely the kind of user-centricity that I want to see in Linux.
However, the end-users aren’t the only users. There are also developers! For example, I remember listening to the developer of the Mojo language talking with Richard Feldman, and the developer said that the development of the Swift language made it clear to him that Apple is aggressively user-centric. I don’t doubt that there are many problems with Swift as with Apple products in general, but I don’t see that kind of discourse in Linux coming from the main maintainers. Instead, there seems to be a vanguard arguing for a better developer experience (such as writing kernel code in Rust), and they find loads of friction. Heck, key developers are leaving Linux!
Edit: Clarified what is strictly my interpretation.
For example, Apple has cared about their developers as customers.
Only if by “customers” you are referring to how they constantly find new ways to fuck you over.
Fair enough. Now that I think about it, maybe the developer experience in Apple products are not universally lauded.
For example, I remembered Pirate Software saying that he didn’t develop for Mac because it was a pain, including having to pay Apple $100 yearly to distribute code without issues. Additionally, I remember my brother meeting a Spotify developer, and the Spotify developer said that Apple makes great hardware but lackluster software.
At the same time, it seems like Swift is not a hated language. The 2023 and 2024 Stack Overflow developer survey reports that, even though few people use Swift (~5% of developers), there’s ~60% of admiration for the language.
Yup. Modern MacOS is only pleasant to use if you have absolutely no preferences on how your computing environment should work and am willing to completely accept the walled garden.
Otherwise, it’s a hellscape.
I’ve been using fractional scaling on my laptop with GNOME since I installed it about four years ago. It’s a bit heavy on battery usage but it’s worked as expected for all this time.
Oh. I see I was wrong. Amazing. I should look into that! How did you enable it? I did a quick search and found I just need to do
gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['scale-monitor-framebuffer']"; is that it?I believe it was enabled by default on Ubuntu.
congratulations
none of that is true
I’m sorry for having said something untrue. For example, DannyBoy points out that GNOME and whatever Ubuntu uses do have fractional scaling.
However, is my experience untrue? Was I lying when I said that my track-pad two-finger scrolling is frustrating? Furthermore, it’s not unusual for people at work to try my track-pad and it being way too sensitive or too un-sensitive, but no in between.
Was I lying when I said that, for me, it’s hard to get software? Was I lying when I said that maybe this is a skill issue on my part, but even that is indicative of a lack of easy ways of getting reassurance in the way that Apple makes it easy to find software in their App Store?
Was I lying when I said that, to me, GNOME is gorgeous?
Was the creator of the Mojo language lying when he recounted his experience developing Swift?
Was I lying when I said that developers are leaving Linux?
GNOME is not user-centric. GNOME is GNOME-centric.
apart from the Mojo thing you it wasn’t clear that this was only your experience, and none of which are accurate or useful observations
It sounds like you really value skill, precision, and usefulness.
stalkers who harassed and attacked me and my family
Wtf is wrong with these people?
Isn’t this the guy who got called out for trying to use social media brigading to force Linux kernel rust patches through? There’s a good chance those stalkers are fictional.
The very same, yes.
If you are replying with “isn’t this the guy” it means you didn’t bother to read the post, which also removes the merits of you questioning if what he is claiming is fiction or not.
But people on HN provided context and it indeed seem he was stalked and harassed, but through his VTuber persona and there was even a GDocs document with the details.
Edit: His VTuber persona is Asahi Lina
Slightly OT but I always thought Asahi Lina was a woman. TIL.
It’s never been confirmed that they are the same person, and they both operate as if they are completely separate people. Lina goes by she/her on stream as well.
entitlement and/or astro-turfing imo
Ikr
I’m not sure why they feel it’s Linus’ responsibility to make Rust happen in the kernel. I’m certainly not happy someone is being harassed, but none of this is the fault of the Linux Foundation or the people that have been working on the kernel for decades.
If Rust is going to happen, then it’ll happen. Or fork it and make a Rust Linux with blackjack and hookers, and boy, will everyone left behind feel silly that they didn’t jump on the bandwagon. But nobody has to make your dreams their focus or even interact with it if they don’t want to. And these social media outbursts aren’t accomplishing what they think they’re accomplishing.
I’m not sure why they feel it’s Linus’ responsibility to make Rust happen in the kernel.
That’s not what’s being said here, as far as I can tell. Linus is not expected to somehow “make Rust happen”. But as a leader, he is expected to call out maintainers who block the R4L project and harass its members just because they feel like it. Christoph Hellwig’s behavior should not be allowed.
I’m not saying Marcan is necessarily correct, to be clear. It might well be that Linus chose to handle the issue in a quieter way. We can’t know whether Linus was planning on some kind of action that didn’t involve him jumping into the middle of the mailing list fight, eg contacting Christoph Hellwig privately. I’m merely pointing out that maybe you misunderstood what Marcan is saying.
Or fork it and make a Rust Linux with blackjack and hookers, and boy, will everyone left behind feel silly that they didn’t jump on the bandwagon.
That’s what they’re doing. But if you read the entire post carefully, he explains why maintaining a fork without eventually upstreaming it is problematic. And it’s not like they’re forcing their dream on the linux project, because the discussions have already been had and rust has officially been accepted into the kernel. So in the wider context, this is about individual maintainers causing friction against an agreed-upon project they don’t like.
Thing is, there is already Rust in Linux, and Torvalds wants more, faster. He’s being sabotaged by C purists, who at this point should stop acting unprofessionally, or at the very least make their own “only C” fork if they disagree with his leadership so much.
If Rust is going to happen, then it’ll happen.
How can it happen if individual maintainers say they’ll do everything in their power to keep Rust out of the kernel? There’s fundamentally no way forward. The R4L devs already gave every commitment they could, but some maintainers fundamentally don’t want it.
And before anyone brings it up: no, the maintainers weren’t asked to touch Rust code or not break Rust code or anything else.
Fact is Rust isn’t ready for every part of the kernel. C/Rust interop is still a growing pain for Linux and troubleshooting issues at the boundary require a developer to be good at both. It’s an uphill battle, and instead of inciting flame wars they could have fostered cooperation around the parts of the kernel that were more prepared. While their work is appreciated and they are incredibly talented, the reality is that social pressures are going to dictate development. At the end of the day software is used by people. Their expectations are not law, but they do need addressed to preserve public opinion.
Again: what cooperation is possible when the maintainer says “I’ll do everything in my power to keep Rust out of the kernel”? When they NACK a patch outside of their Subsystem?
Can a maintainer really NACK any patch they dislike? I mean I get that Hellwig said he won’t merge it. Fine. What if for example Kroah-Hartman says “whatever, I like it” and merges it nonetheless in his tree?
I doubt Greg is pulling in Rust until it has been through the mainline. That said, Linus can merge anything he wants.
It was an example. I don’t have a fucking clue how all the maintainers are named.
The main question was: why can a maintainer NACK something not in their responsibility? Isn’t it simply necessary to find one maintainer who is fine with it and pulls it in?
Or even asked differently: shouldn’t you need to find someone who ACKs it rather than caring about who NACKs it?
Yes, but asking him in this case was basically a courtesy, the code isn’t going into anything he manages. He can reject it, but that’s an opinion, not a decision. It can still be merged if the regular maintainer (or someone senior like Linus himself) approves.
Can you quote where that was said?
I’ve been following this debate for a bit and as far as I can tell it’s not so much that they’ll do what they can to keep rust out but more to make sure that the people who want to develop in rust are the ones who end up maintaining that part of the code and not the current maintainers.
Sure: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/[email protected]/
I accept that you don’t want to be involved with Rust in the kernel, which is why we offered to maintain the Rust abstraction layer for the DMA coherent allocator as a separate component (which it would be anyways) ourselves.
Which doesn’t help me a bit. Every additional bit that the another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
Can’t get more explicit than this.
Then rust isn’t going to happen in every area of the kernel yet
Which means unnecessary duplication of code, because every driver has to track kernel Interfaces separately. Why? What’s the advantage?
It will happen via it being better, and being shown to be better. And it will take time to unseat 30 years of C.
Not if they’re being prevented from showing to be better by C devs who, literally, “will do everything [they] can do to stop this”.
Nobody is trying to unseat 30 years of C.
Nobody prevents anyone from maintaining their own tree, thereby proving it works.
And yes, Rust is trying to replace C, in the kernel. Let’s start off by being honest here, k?
If we are going to be honest, let’s not be misleading.
Nobody is looking to replace C in the kernel just to switch out the language. This is not a “rewrite it in Rust” initiative.
What the R4L folks want is to be able to write “new” code in Rust and for that code to call into the C parts of the kernel in an idiomatic way (idiomatic for Rust). So they need to create Rust interfaces (which they, the R4L side, are doing). This whole controversy is over such an example.
At this point, we are talking about platform specific drivers.
Now, new kernel code is written all the time. Sometimes newer designs replace older code that did something similar. So yes, in the future, that new code may be written in Rust and replace older code that was written in C. This will be a better design replacing an inferior one, not a language rewrite for its own sake.
Core kernel code is not getting written in Rust for a while though I do not think. For one thing, Rust does not have broad enough architecture support (platforms). Perhaps if a Rust compiler as part of GCC reaches maturity, we could start to see Rust in the core.
That is not what is being talked about right now though. So, it is not a reasonable objection to current activity.
If R4L authors want to use Rust so badly, then still:
Maintain your own tree! Let’s see how simple and clean these interfaces are over the longer haul.
They will get mainlined if they are technically superior.
It was merged into mainline, in 6.1, over a year ago.
Nobody prevents anyone from maintaining their own tree, thereby proving it works.
Yet the Linux project officially OK’d the R4L experiment, so why does this stuff still have to be kept out-of-tree?
And yes, Rust is trying to replace C, in the kernel.
No, Rust is not trying to replace C in the kernel.
Let’s start off by being honest here, k?
Sure, why don’t you give it a try?
Yes, it’s been ok’d. That means it’s ok to go in, once proven.
So, R4L peeps need to figure out how to convince maintainers that is works.
So, go do it?
How do you convince a maintainer that NACKs a PR outside his subsystem while explicitly saying:
I will do everything I can do to stop this
Please explain how one can convince such an individual.
why they feel it’s Linus’ responsibility to make Rust happen in the kernel
who does? are you talking about marcan? because as far as i can see, what they’re asking for is for linus to make a stance and actually say whether R4L is a thing they want or not. because linus’ attitude so far has been “let’s wait and see” which hasn’t been all that helpful, as said in the blog post.
“Let’s wait and C”.
aughhhhhh here’s your upvote. git out.
Ultimately Linus’ opinion here does not matter in the positive. He can say Rust in kernel is good, but that does not summon the skill and work to make it happen. He can say it’s bad and quash it, at the potential expense of Linux’s future. His position of avoiding an extreme is a pragmatic one. “Let them come if they may, and if they do not it was less a loss for us.”
Linus can merge whatever patches he wants to, and the stonewalling subsystem maintainers would have to deal with it–like he did with the eBPF scheduler. R4L maintainers already wrote the patches, they literally just needed to be merged.
see, i could maybe agree with this if it weren’t for the amazing work from R4L that already has been and continues to be done, despite subsystems maintainers putting their foot down and going “Not In My Back Yard, bucko!”. how many more maintainers does R4L have to lose before Linus realizes he might need to take a stance as a project lead?
I’m not placing blame on the Linux Foundation, Linus, or anyone else for that matter. However, I believe that if Linus has publicly endorsed the use of Rust in the kernel, that decision is already largely set in motion. On the other hand, if the community collectively opposes the integration of Rust with C and no action is taken to address these problems, and everyone say no, then there is little to no reason to make the initial statement.
Much of the work being produced by Rust developers seems to struggle, often because it’s not made in C and because of maintainers saying “No I don’t want any rust code near my C code”.
I recognize that there are various technical factors influencing this decision, but ultimately it was the creator’s choice to support it.
Isn’t it reasonable for a maintainer to say “no rust here” when they don’t know rust, don’t want to learn it, and have decades of experience in C, and are maintaining that part of the system
Yes.
But that’s not what’s happening here. The guy who said no is not the maintainer of the rust code, and is not expected to touch the rust code at all.
It’s also his legitimate choice to wait. He can’t see the best way forward and is deciding to wait on his decission or let the community decide instead of him. As much as we like to think of him as autocrat in some way, he respects people that work on kernel and he respects their time. The smartest move is often to wait on a decision. And even if it’s not a smartest move in this case, it can still be better than making a wrong decission that will demoralize the community even more.
deleted by creator
Or just boycott Linux and use Redox if you like Rust.
And these social media outbursts aren’t accomplishing what they think they’re accomplishing.
I’m extremely technical, but not actively into Linux, though I’ve set up various distros dozens up times. These posts have driven me away from Linux in an extremely hard way - anyone with opinions like the Kernel team simply don’t deserve support, and Linus is clearly past his prime and making bad decisions. This has shown me that Linux is going to (likely already has) slowly stop improving due to its explicitly anti-progress leadership. Until a fork with good leaders manages to take a real market share, the OS will stagnate.
I’m sure this is a minority opinion, but to claim that the social media blitz hasn’t had its intended effect is objectively false. Fuck the kernel team.
Linus is pro-Rust. It is not clear from what you wrote that you realize that. He has merged plenty of Rust code. I personally expect him to merge the change that caused all this current drama (though I could clearly be wrong about that).
Right or wrong, this is how Linux kernel dev has always worked. How long did it take for real time to get in? How smoothly is the bcachefs merge going? Have you read any of the GPU driver chatter?
Honestly though, it is not just the kernel. How much different is the Wayland scene?
I am hardly defending Linux here by the way. I think the maintainers are blocking progress. I am merely pointing out that it is hardly new or unique.
Anyway, RedoxOS is quite progressive. They would probably love help from anybody that finds Linux kernel dev too stodgy.
That’s really too bad… They are a super talented developer and they were doing something really cool, and making great progress too.
But if they were doing Asahi Linux for fun as a hobby, and if it isn’t fun anymore for a variety of reasons, then you really can’t blame them.
I’m not sure if there is a “right” or “wrong” here, as this is just one person’s side of the story that acknowledges, but mostly glosses over, the possibility that they made mistakes or behaved badly at times too.
But I can absolutely understand the basic concept of burning out because you don’t think your hard work is being appreciated, because people are making hard things even harder for you, or because users on the internet let their excitement about a thing push them too far into being entitled.
Hopefully Marcan can find some time to relax and do fun and rewarding things with their time.
But if they were doing Asahi Linux for fun as a hobby, and if it isn’t fun anymore for a variety of reasons, then you really can’t blame them.
I have 0 knowledge about this project, so my statement here is just a general statement.
But if a developer collects donations for promising something, then this is not just “for fun”, but they do have a moral obligation to try doing a good job.
It seems they overfullfilled their obligations (but all I know about it, are the words of the developer). So, as said above, this is a general statement.
edit: lol you guys are funny, but maybe read my comment. I talked about “doing his best” and about “things they promised”. You really think it is okay to say “I will try project A, I need donations” and then go on a holiday with the donated money and do nothing else? Do you thing this attitude will get people to donate anything?
You really think it is okay to say “I will try project A, I need donations” and then go on a holiday with the donated money and do nothing else?
Yes. A donation is a donation, fullstop.
Would I feel good or morally okay doing such a thing? Absolutely no way. I acknowledge that internal inconsistency. If someone gives me something, I feel obligation to give back… simple as that.
Objectively speaking though, a donation is not a contract, and to expect a donation to have future influence is a messy method of doing business that should be viewed with a pretty critical eye. If a person giving money wants an obligation, they should pursue a contract… If they don’t care what happens after they give the money but just want to show support or appreciation, that’s where donations shine.
If I gave a donation to my favorite videogame dev, but then 2 hours later they stopped supporting that game, I’d still be happy I showed them support for what they had given me so far. I believe retroactively being unhappy about giving a donation shouldn’t cast the receiver in a bad light, and that it’s the giver that didn’t understand what they were doing and what the potential outcomes were.
Donations do not obligate anyone to do anything. It’s a donation, not pay. They should be done out of appreciation for someone’s time and effort, or to help support any potential work the project decides to do. But never with the expectation that you’re owed something back for donating.
You’re probably right from a legal perspective, but the difference between “donation” and “salary” is pretty murky in this context.
If this person was given a grant or funding via a kickstarter or something I would agree with the obligation idea, but donations are exactly that, a voluntary gift to the dev for the work they have done so far and may continue to do in the future. There are no “moral obligations” to continue the project.
Wow. The entitlement… maybe learn what a donation means
Speaking of his Wii homebrew work,
Most people using our software just wanted to play pirated games (something we did not support, condone, or directly enable)
He wasn’t on whatever team that released a tool that asked “Oh hey just asking do you intend to run pirated games? Just need to know for setup” then soft bricking the console if you say yes?
I read the “thin blue line” email and it seems… reasonable and sensible? And seeing how he is so appaled by it makes me question his judgement a bit.
knowing where “thin blue line” comes from, you don’t see anything wrong with a maintainer randomly dropping it on the mailing list?
Alright, fair. I was more refering to the content of the message, not the (botched) metaphore of maintainers as a force of order.
ah, fair enough. i guess that’s kind of the thing with dogwhistles. if you know, you know.
https://archive.org/details/thethinbluelinecomplete
Starring Rowan Atkinson
Its simply the Police in general…
You scrolled half a wiki page to the part that fits your narrative.
The metaphor of a thin blue line is that they “the police” are not in the typical sense very large, like an army, but they do keep the order with a thin presence of rule and order. Sounds like what maintainers do in this case.
i scrolled half a wiki page to link to… facts.
That’s not where “it comes from” though. Since if it were,it wouldnt need to be half a page down.
It’s associated yes, but not in everybodies mind is that the case.
where [it] comes from
You imply it comes from:
The “thin blue line” symbol has been used by the “Blue Lives Matter” movement, which emerged in 2014
But you link to a Wikipedia article that says:
New York police commissioner Richard Enright used the phrase in 1922. In the 1950s, Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Parker often used the term in speeches, and he also lent the phrase to the department-produced television show The Thin Blue Line. Parker used the term “thin blue line” to further reinforce the role of the LAPD. As Parker explained, the thin blue line, representing the LAPD, was the barrier between law and order and social and civil anarchy.
The Oxford English Dictionary records its use in 1962 by The Sunday Times referring to police presence at an anti-nuclear demonstration. The phrase is also documented in a 1965 pamphlet by the Massachusetts government, referring to its state police force, and in even earlier police reports of the NYPD. By the early 1970s, the term had spread to police departments across the United States. Author and police officer Joseph Wambaugh helped to further popularize the phrase with his police novels throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
The term was used for the title of Errol Morris’s 1988 documentary film The Thin Blue Line about the murder of the Dallas Police officer Robert W. Wood.
I have no idea about this guy’s politics, but it’s a pretty well known phrase with a lot of different contexts.
we don’t live in the 80s though. we live in contemporary times where things have different now meanings to what they did 40 years ago. meanings that might be influenced by recent happenings. hope that helps!
You’re the one who brought up the origin of the term, why would you do that if you’re wanting to refer to the contemporary meaning?
This is just being disingenuous. They clearly mean the origin of the current usage, which is rooted in police “sheepdog” ideology and all that fascist bullshit. Not that the old usage was much better considering the state of police gangs in LA and the kind of laws they were enforcing in the 60s.
I usually see “thin blue line” (and the flag) used by reactionaries, racists, and white nationalists. Especially since BLM. Don’t know what sort of politics Ts’o has, other than he’s probably not an anarchist (ACAB!), but I guess (benefit of the doubt and all) he could be some ignorant lib with a head full of copaganda, so getting out the code of conduct for racist dogwhistles might be a bit premature.
It comes from The Thin Red Line, which is about some Scottish regiment standing up to a Russian cavalry charge. Even if you don’t know that, it seems quite obviously a military metaphor, and that indicates a militaristic view of what policing should be like, veneration of the police as heroes, and total ignorance about what the police actually are and do.
You’re talking about the US police. A lot of the world have police forces that serve the people.
Going to need you to cite your sources on that one. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/the-major-flaw-with-racial-charge-against-sam-kerr-that-shouldve-seen-the-case-abandoned/news-story/62e5fad93d835c9f432923375e5e833d
I’m not just talking about the US police. I’ve never been to the US, and I assure you the police is shit here too. Ts’o is American, and that “thin blue line” saying seems especially American or Anglo. I’ve never heard that over here. So I’m not sure how that’s even relevant to the discussion.
seems quite obviously
That’s highly subjective. Remember this is a global resource with environments different from your own.
I fail to see how anyone could interpret what can only refer to holding the line as not a heroic act and a military metaphor. And that’s how it’s used, and that’s what it means, and that’s where it comes from.
And Ts’o clearly knows this as well, since it he appropriately uses it as a metaphor for keeping chaos at bay and out of the kernel.
In the same way a swastika is no longer linked to an ancient peace symbol.
A thin line between chaos and order. That line is blue if it’s the police.
Tell me you are only familiar with stuff going on with the US and nowhere else without telling me.
How does this comment say anything about that?
Its literally the first thing in the wiki page. “Line” between apposing forces is the “order”. ie Mantainers in this case.
The first time I heard the phrase was from a TV show with Mr Bean when I was like 9 or 10.
As another commenter said, I think the article guy is a bit sensitive or took it the wrong way, since “the thin blue line” when talking about maintainers is very much like they are acting as defense to “outside” forces. Whether that is good or bad for Linux, is debated.
Linux
A few months ago (Oct 18 2024) Linus and his sidekick signing the kernel, not only admitted they were going to comply with US Stat.Dep. doctrine and remove developers (on long term good standing) on the basis of nationality and national origin of the employers, they exploded into a rant, clearly admitting to being nationalist and in distrorting history to fit their rhetoric. In greenwashing nationalism (you can say racism underlying this national hate speech) into the base of most open and free code, nationalism now is not free as in beer it is free as in “freedom”? This is as large of a difference as socialism and ethno-socialism.
The linux community … the end user … DOESN’T give a damn, only wants the latest and badest of development in his gaming machine.
Once you make a slip and slide exception you can’t prevent any more in the future. First will be “justified nationalism”, then “not so justified racism”, then “sexism”, then will be the gas chambers for anyone who forks anything away from Führera (Fedora + Führer).
If using any kernel later than 10 18 2024 I see it as the nationalist/racist fork. I expect the original to continue by developers who don’t use race/ethnicity/gender as a basis for accepting/rejecting contributors.
Are you referring to the time they kicked out a bunch of people employed by the companies associated with the Russian government and that are under direct sanctions for supporting the war?
People are not under sanctions, and no linux developer worked for the Russian government, and since when has a war affected who works on what open source project. There are wars all over the place all the damn time …
I am not talking about the sanctions, I am talking about the additional remarks on how nationalist and racist both the leaders of the project appeared to be from their statements.
fuck gatekeepers. the linux kernel doesn’t deserve new, talented people bringing fresh, useful and modern approaches to the project; their time and effort is only wasted there. i know it’s not right, but part of me wishes linux rots and something better takes its place.
bitterness aside, i hope marcan gets the rest he needs. i wish him the best.
, but part of me wishes linux rots and something better takes its place.
In short, you’re for the “make a new kernel from scratch” plan. It’s okay to just say that without being hateful on the competition.
There are already several Rust Kennel From Scratch projects that are reasonably progressed. Redox is one, Asterinas is another.
The latter is I think aiming for Linux ABI compatibility.
The latter is I think aiming for Linux ABI compatibility.
I had never hard of Asterinas, but this sounds like a the best approach to me. I believe alternative OS’s need to act as (near) drop-in replacements if they want to be used as daily drivers. ABI-incompatible alternatives might be fine for narrower use cases, but most people wouldn’t even try out a desktop OS that doesn’t support most of the hardware and software they already use.
I’d much rather see them commit their talent towards more open hardware. Apple hardware isn’t even that good.
The build quality may not be that good but the technology and the designs are excellent. I say that as somebody that does not use macOS (well, not much).
As somebody that buys older hardware, I cannot wait to use Linux on Apple Silicon in a year or two. When I do, I will be immensely appreciative of all the effort that is going into it now. It will feel pretty open to me by that point.
Most importantly though, people put effort into the things that they want to. I am thankful that they have that freedom.
I think it’s important to see these types of efforts, while I’ll never go out and buy a MacBook the effort isn’t wasted since it gives current users more freedom and future people buying used laptops more options for Linux compatible hardware.
Without a project like this, that hardware will end up being e-waste a lot sooner than it should be, when Apple drops support. At least to me I see an ethical and moral imperative for projects like this, but I also understand people’s grievances with Apple.
If people can use Linux on their Apple hardware after macOS stops supporting it, it keeps them from having to buy new Apple hardware a little longer.
