Rust-Written Replacement To GNU Coreutils Progressing, Some Binaries Now Faster

[coder]

Linux sucks.

It certainly has a lot of aspects that could be better, but in the totality of everything it is and does, it's the best option for a great many. Furthermore, it's not a foregone conclusion that we'd have anything better if Linux didn't happen. Yes, there were other open source operating systems, but I think a few things about Linux really coalesced momentum behind it in ways that might not have happened with one of the BSDs, for instance.

[stevea]

Hmmm - I think it's a good idea.

I was for years a kernel/OS developer for a BSD variant with a lot of security features. The C language 'was" really the only choice for the kernel, but when qualifying apps it was very clear that the C language gives developers enough rope to hang themselves. It's easy to find app code (and sometimes kernel) that would allow a devious user to cause the app to walk off the end of an array, or pollute the stack, or corrupt a pointer, manipulate a file in unexpected ways. There have been several serious Linux kernel bugs over the years based on that, too. I've been using Haskell for a few years, and recently started learning Rust, and these languages prevent so many side-effects by their very design, that it's much easier to avoid creating security holes.

coreutils vs uutils / I don't think this was the most 'target dense' package of apps if security improvement is the issue. coreutils consists of a lot of small, generally simple, programs that have need around since dinosaurs ruled. They have been stared-at and honed many times. There are still likely some security holes in there , and these are so widely used that the cost of a vulnerability could be very high. Then there is the problem of creating new apps with identical options and features - hard work. IMO re-writing 'bash' in Rust would be a herculean effort, but would be likely to close a lot more security holes. There is a lot of weird stuff in bash.

GPL vs MIT ? That's more a political divide. One useful feature of GPL is that it doesn't allow anyone to "embrace, extend, and exterminate". IMO unlikely to be an issue for coreutils, where a main value is inter-compatibility. A main disadvantage of GPL is that it virtually prevents market funding of consumer-level SW; prevents a lot of entrepreneurial efforts. The reason why something like "TaxAct" has never existed under GPL is that it costs money to develop, the value to consumer per copy is modest <$50) and you'd sell about one copy before everyone had it. So many such projects end up begging for a paypal tips, like a hobo with a cup in hand. Dual license might have been the better choice here to keep the zealots and purists in their seats.

Yes it would be great to have a more secure, hopefully better-written version of most any common software.

[sdack]

bla bla bla ...

If people like you had your way, medicine would still consist of bloodletting and believe me, bloodletting cost more lives than it saved.

God, what a whiner you are. "if people like you had your way" Just no... All you are showing us is how much you base your argument on your belief rather than on experience. You still just blame the tool for the mistakes of the users. Nor can you think for yourself.

C gets used by so many including uneducated people that mistakes are unavoidable. Rust gets used right now mostly by people who could likely write secure code in many languages, meaning, they are skilled. They choose Rust out of political reasons, but not because of an actual need for it. Anyone who can explain why Rust would be better than C cannot simultaneously claim not to be able to write secure code. And most people who write here in favour of Rust belong to this category of people. Rust will never reach the level of accessibility of C. Java, JavaScript, PHP, Python, and even Lua have found their niches because these make certain areas more accessible. Rust does not make anything more accessible, it makes it at best more complicated, and as long as there are more accessible languages will users pick those before they pick Rust. You want to make comparisons to medicine?! Rust is DOA - Dead On Arrival. There is a term from medicine for you.

[wswartzendruber]

God, what a whiner you are. "if people like you had your way" Just no... All you are showing us is how much you base your argument on your belief rather than on experience. You still just blame the tool for the mistakes of the users. Nor can you think for yourself.

C gets used by so many including uneducated people that mistakes are unavoidable. Rust gets used right now mostly by people who could likely write secure code in many languages, meaning, they are skilled. They choose Rust out of political reasons, but not because of an actual need for it. Anyone who can explain why Rust would be better than C cannot simultaneously claim not to be able to write secure code. And most people who write here in favour of Rust belong to this category of people. Rust will never reach the level of accessibility of C. Java, JavaScript, PHP, Python, and even Lua have found their niches because these make certain areas more accessible. Rust does not make anything more accessible, it makes it at best more complicated, and as long as there are more accessible languages will users pick those before they pick Rust. You want to make comparisons to medicine?! Rust is DOA - Dead On Arrival. There is a term from medicine for you.

Safe (default) Rust is superior for stability because it prohibits direct memory access.

That was easy.

[sdack]

Safe (default) Rust is superior for stability because it prohibits direct memory access.

I will sooner believe Rust to cause autism. Just because you do not allow one particular feature does not mean users could not create instability. There are near-infinite possibilities to create instability without using pointers. People will always go for languages with direct memory access when they need performance, just for the sake of creating zero-copy solutions. And Rust programmers will always try to compare their code to C, because they know they have given up something of value. Those who do not need fast code will continue to choose interpreter languages with simple syntax and loose data types because it allows for faster developments. Rust then does not offer anything of significance when all it offers is prohibition. This may indeed be of value for people on the autism spectrum, but most people rather have plenty of features and not need them, than need features and not have them.

[wswartzendruber]

Interesting. You fundamentally do not understand C. Nor do you understand Rust.

[sdack]

Interesting. You fundamentally do not understand C. Nor do you understand Rust.

Oh, but you are wrong. I do understand you quite well. What makes you believe you knew better is your fear. Fortran and Cobol were used in a time when most people had no computer and no access to one. And these languages are still around. And while operating systems and makers fought for dominance did one thing unite them all - C. Now C/C++ is about everywhere and it will be here for a very long time. It will be around longer than anyone wants it to be. But Rust is not going anywhere. It is dead on arrival and will not even be a footnote compared to other languages. You will never be a good programmer when you fear C/C++. There are far too many good programmers on the market who can do your job without needing Rust. People will look at you and only see a coward afraid of his own mistakes, who needs a helping hand at every turn. You want to be that guy? Fine by me.

[darkonix]

God, what a whiner you are. "if people like you had your way" Just no... All you are showing us is how much you base your argument on your belief rather than on experience. You still just blame the tool for the mistakes of the users. Nor can you think for yourself.

C gets used by so many including uneducated people that mistakes are unavoidable. Rust gets used right now mostly by people who could likely write secure code in many languages, meaning, they are skilled. They choose Rust out of political reasons, but not because of an actual need for it. Anyone who can explain why Rust would be better than C cannot simultaneously claim not to be able to write secure code. And most people who write here in favour of Rust belong to this category of people. Rust will never reach the level of accessibility of C. Java, JavaScript, PHP, Python, and even Lua have found their niches because these make certain areas more accessible. Rust does not make anything more accessible, it makes it at best more complicated, and as long as there are more accessible languages will users pick those before they pick Rust. You want to make comparisons to medicine?! Rust is DOA - Dead On Arrival. There is a term from medicine for you.

Well, Rust does makes eliminating several classes of memory related issues/vulnerabilities more accessible. That´s its main selling point but obviously as a more modern language than C it adds several improvements that are never going to be addressed by C. I don't believe its adoption is just politics. A lot of people are looking at it and seems to be over critical mass now. I could be wrong, time will tell. No one is saying to rewrite everything in it, but some people like to rewrite old software with more modern tools. Nothing wrong with it.

[mmstick]

But Rust is not going anywhere. It is dead on arrival and will not even be a footnote compared to other languages.

"Old Man Yells at Rust"

Oh no!

Anyway...

[Developer12]

They could absolutely ship a GPL program by itself. But they don't get to ship a GPL program as a part of a proprietary suite.

This is precisely why Apple doesn't ship BASH with macOS and they use KSH instead.

No, they ABSOLUTLEY can ship a GPL program as part of a proprietary suite, alongside other programs with which they don't share source. The language in the GPL talks about code linking during compilation or as dynamically loaded libraries. Outside of that it doesn't apply. The alternative would be insanity because putting unrelated programs together into a distro or anything else (even a zip file to a friend) would constitute a breach.

Just because you would LIKE for it to be otherwise (forcing microsoft to either go completely GPL or stay away entirely) doesn't change the legality of the situation.