It’s expected, because the tools are still in development and have not reached 100% test covered yet. Ubuntu 25.10 is not a long term version, so ideal for real world testing. But now we can expect copy-pasta ai blog posts all over the place. And personal attacks against the programming language itself.
Btw for me persona problem of this replacement is only license switching from strong copy left to permissive, I don’t really like this trend it smells really bad from what corps actuality like more nowadays as fear as fire gpl.I don’t know who exactly staying behind rust coreutils but devs just ignore all request about GPL or responding very cold or find any other stupid excuse like they don’t wanna deal with it. At least they could give their direct point of their views and their motivation about it.but still will not support MIT licence as for main tools for importan core of system
That’s a pretty big problem, I couldn’t care less about the language. But stepping away from GPL is not good at all.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not sure what the worst case scenario is… like, is some company going to get rich off of their proprietary
cpandsudoimplementation that they forked off of an open one?It’s one thing when a company gets the benefits of people’s contributions and doesn’t give back (in the form of source code when they build upon it and at the time they offer binary files). If a company wants to do the work themselves… well now they don’t have too.
GPL promoters typically value software freedom, and may believe it’s generally bad for society when software is proprietary. I don’t know what coreutlis does but I doubt there’s a thoughtful reason to choose MIT license for a clone.
Apple is ok with GPLv2 Bash. Linux kernel is GPLv2, GNU coreutils are GPLv3. Systemd is curiosly also GPLv2. Striping GNU out of GNU/Linux might not be so innocent.
deleted by creator
I understand the sentiment.
The move to a permissive license opens the door for these tools to possibly become closed source one day.
You know that you can change license of software that you own copyright to? You can take GPL code and change it to something else, but you can’t un-GPL existing released code. It’s the same thing with MIT.
The only people bound by the license are people who use it because it is licensed to them.
The difference is that organisation may develop MIT software without publishing their code.
deleted by creator
That’s just it though. The developers can drop out over time, then some other corp can come in and control it, then close source it.
Why does it matter to you? If the developers are fine with the license and how the code they write can be used under it, that’s their prerogative.
That’s a bit short-sighted. On the level of the individual project you are right, it’s the dev’s choice. And I think permissive licenses also have a place with security critical software like crypto libraries, where everyone benefits from secure libraries being used as much as possible, even in proprietary software.
But on an ecosystem level, this trend to permissive licensing is very worrying, because if it reaches a critical mass, it opens us up to EEE scenarios. Android is already bad enough, only made bearable by Google having to release much of the source code. Imagine what it would be like today if Google had succeeded with their Fuchsia efforts. So we should at least be wary and give a little pushback to this trend. It’s valid to question if everything under the sun has to be rewritten and if it does, why does it have to be permissive licensing? What’s the end goal?
Sure, but everybody is aware that roughly 30% of the Internet run on
ubuntu:latestand well, that will move to 25.10 soon.And yes, nobody should do this, using a latest tag for docker builds, but everybody does it … So …
25.10 isn’t on the main upgrade path. Serious users migrate to the new LTS every two years, and very serious users pay for the twelve-year support plan.
Damn bruh, I didn’t know that too.
New software has bugs??
I will really appreciate the irony when it turns out that it’s the new implementation in Rust that is correct
deleted by creator
Glad to see someone’s working the bugs out.
deleted by creator
Related and sane response:
(Low Level) https://youtu.be/Jgq551IhquA?t=4m7s
There seems to be a bug in rust md5 implementation. This can break everything, but then everything can soon be fixed too.
Silksong has tons of bugs.
If you rely on a bug, it becomes a feature.
Dude, they feature a main bug to kill off all those other bugs.
I can hear the goalposts moving.
Durrrrrr
I’m willing to bet that if the GNU coreutils getting bumped a minor version caused widespread issues for a day, nobody would even bother reporting in it…
Can you point to an instance that actually happened?
Do you REALLY think that?
… Yeah? Beta software having bugs isn’t the hottest of takes.
- Minor releases aren’t beta. By any convention they should be fully tested, final releases. And if gnu core utils broke systems in a minor release you better believe it would make it to some news.
- The instability of choosing a beta software for the literal core of your operating system is kind of the point.
Ubuntu 25.10 entered beta on September 18th. It releases on October 9th. It’s still in beta.
I see what you meant. I consider rust core utils beta so stand by my statement but I see what you meant.
I warned ya. Rust folks never make a true 1:1 replacement. They have to tweek it. Always.
This is such bad take only because it singles out rust for some weird reason. Tool total rewrites take work regardless of language
I like tool rewrites. But fixing major issues just before it is used in so many systems? It’s irresponsible.
It should of been given more time to mature. And Ubuntu is used so much, even the odd versions of it, that if one thing goes wrong later; this will cause a lot of bad press for both Rust and Ubuntu.
It should make the rust community very nervous. So many companies use the Ubuntu:latest tag in so many projects. And millions of people will hear, after being subject to the breakages, that it was all about Rust. Even though it’s not about Rust, just bad management
Oh, it’s not the language. It’s the type of people who not only like Rust, but have a compulsion / need / fixation on re-writing existing tools. They say it’s so it’s more secure, but honestly it’s so they can apply their own opinions of how the tool should be. They always promise to make it a drop in replacement, but then then get rid of options, or change what they do… they can’t help themselves. And that is the kind of people who volunteer to port tools to Rust. If they would stick to true 1:1 replacement, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Are there other types of people? Writing software to be bug-for-bug compatible with something else is really difficult and, yes, not fun at all. You will not find many people looking to volunteer for that…
This type of comment is indistinguishable from the low-tier, rage bait comments under every Phoronix article.
This isn’t a rage bait comment. Show me one Rust tool replacement made that didn’t alter functionality in some way, causing edge cases, and sometimes even mainline usage, to break and scripts have to be written to accommodate. I’ve not seen it yet. If you have, I will gladly stand corrected. The language is great, it’s the programmers at issue.
