> Many people call Ubuntu flavors distributions. This includes Ubuntu developers.
You seem mad that a Linux distribution (Ubuntu) is trying this software out. Why do you care so much? Do you expect some of the programs you use to break? Have they?
If you don’t want to use uutils, I have good news. You can opt out. Or use Ubuntu LTS. Or use a different distribution entirely. I suspect you’re mad for a different reason. If all the tests passed, would you still be mad? Do you feel a similar way about angry projects like alpine Linux, which ship code built on musl? All the same compatibility arguments apply there. Musl is also not 100% compatible with glibc. How about llvm? Do you wish we had fewer web browsers?
Or maybe, is it a rust thing in particular? Like, if this rewrite was in C, C++ or go would you feel the same way? Are you worried more components of Linux will be ported to rust? (And if so, why?)
Ultimately the strength (and weakness) of Linux is that you’re not locked in to anything. I don’t understand how the existence of this software could make your life worse. If anything it sounds like it might be helping to clarify your stance on OS stability. If you want to make a principled stance there, there’s plenty of stable Linux distributions which will mirror your values. (Eg debian, Ubuntu lts, etc). Or you can just opt out of this experiment.
Given all of that, the tone I’m inferring from your comments seems disproportionate. Whats going on? Or am I misreading you?
You thought I was angry? What would you call Linus Torvalds when someone broke user space?[1]
You confused blunt responses to repetitive, condescending, specious, or false statements and anger at Canonical seemingly.
I made no objection to any software existing.
I like Rust. It was unfortunate this experiment supported stereotypes of Rust fanatics promoting Rust without respect for stability.
I reject the view users should have to wait 2 years for bug fixes and features, accept silently all experiments, or switch silently to a distribution with less 3rd party support and other issues inevitably.
The opt out process I saw required --allow-remove-essential. It would be irresponsible to recommend this.
A more responsible way to conduct this experiment would have been opt in 1st. Then phased. Then opt out for everyone. And waiting until all tests passed would have been better of course.
You seem mad that a Linux distribution (Ubuntu) is trying this software out. Why do you care so much? Do you expect some of the programs you use to break? Have they?
If you don’t want to use uutils, I have good news. You can opt out. Or use Ubuntu LTS. Or use a different distribution entirely. I suspect you’re mad for a different reason. If all the tests passed, would you still be mad? Do you feel a similar way about angry projects like alpine Linux, which ship code built on musl? All the same compatibility arguments apply there. Musl is also not 100% compatible with glibc. How about llvm? Do you wish we had fewer web browsers?
Or maybe, is it a rust thing in particular? Like, if this rewrite was in C, C++ or go would you feel the same way? Are you worried more components of Linux will be ported to rust? (And if so, why?)
Ultimately the strength (and weakness) of Linux is that you’re not locked in to anything. I don’t understand how the existence of this software could make your life worse. If anything it sounds like it might be helping to clarify your stance on OS stability. If you want to make a principled stance there, there’s plenty of stable Linux distributions which will mirror your values. (Eg debian, Ubuntu lts, etc). Or you can just opt out of this experiment.
Given all of that, the tone I’m inferring from your comments seems disproportionate. Whats going on? Or am I misreading you?