This whole thing is, at it's core, an architectural question. It's quite simple: How much should the C code have to change to allow better Rust support?
Despite his position as "Benevolent dictator for life", Linus doesn't really have the chutzpah to stand up and say "we're doing it this way"[1], so these sorts of questions try to get resolved through petty bickering and namecalling instead (which is the opposite of consensus-building and healthy debate and just makes people more entrenched and unwilling to compromise).
[1] - He was already ousted from the project once, I don't think he wants to try it again.
That question as already answered when the experiment was greenlit: it doesn’t have to at all.
That question is also not what is at the heart of this conflict. It’s someone that categorically rejects the experiment, even though the project has decided to give it a try. It’s entirely social and not technical.
It is what it is... However if you want volunteers to contribute to the kernel and introduce rust as a way to get more people to join this looks pretty bad... I'm sure stuff will figure itself out in the long run it's just sad that the discourse exists at all. I guess the linux kernel will never transition to memory safety via a new language? Idk what else can be done.
Well, I very much hope that the Linux kernel will never transition to Rust. The language is far too complex for my taste. IMHO Rust people should just build their own kernels and if those are better they can replace Linux just like the C++ microkernels did.
Another for the pile of reverse-engineered devicetrees that started downstream, tried to negotiate with upstream and ended up realizing the futility of it all. Godspeed, may your path to depreciation be slow and painless.
uecker|1 year ago
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6OzgBYZNJPr_ZD1@phenom.ffwll.lo...
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wi=ZmP2=TmHsFSUGq8vUZAOWWS...
phendrenad2|1 year ago
Despite his position as "Benevolent dictator for life", Linus doesn't really have the chutzpah to stand up and say "we're doing it this way"[1], so these sorts of questions try to get resolved through petty bickering and namecalling instead (which is the opposite of consensus-building and healthy debate and just makes people more entrenched and unwilling to compromise).
[1] - He was already ousted from the project once, I don't think he wants to try it again.
steveklabnik|1 year ago
That question is also not what is at the heart of this conflict. It’s someone that categorically rejects the experiment, even though the project has decided to give it a try. It’s entirely social and not technical.
vsgherzi|1 year ago
uecker|1 year ago
pulsartwin|1 year ago
talldayo|1 year ago
gigatexal|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]