Linux

50412 readers

1499 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

188

Greg KH: "But for new code / drivers, writing them in Rust where these types of bugs just can't happen (or happen much much less) is a win for all of us, why wouldn't we do this?" (lore.kernel.org)

submitted 3 days ago by qaz@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

But for new code / drivers, writing them in rust where these types of bugs just can't happen (or happen much much less) is a win for all of us, why wouldn't we do this? C++ isn't going to give us any of that any decade soon, and the C++ language committee issues seem to be pointing out that everyone better be abandoning that language as soon as possible if they wish to have any codebase that can be maintained for any length of time.

Rust also gives us the ability to define our in-kernel apis in ways that make them almost impossible to get wrong when using them. We have way too many difficult/tricky apis that require way too much maintainer review just to "ensure that you got this right" that is a combination of both how our apis have evolved over the years (how many different ways can you use a 'struct cdev' in a safe way?) and how C doesn't allow us to express apis in a way that makes them easier/safer to use. Forcing us maintainers of these apis to rethink them is a GOOD thing, as it is causing us to clean them up for EVERYONE, C users included already, making Linux better overall.

And yes, the Rust bindings look like magic to me in places, someone with very little Rust experience, but I'm willing to learn and work with the developers who have stepped up to help out here. To not want to learn and change based on new evidence (see my point about reading every kernel bug we have.)

Rust isn't a "silver bullet" that will solve all of our problems, but it sure will help in a huge number of places, so for new stuff going forward, why wouldn't we want that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] m4m4m4m4@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You can't just throw money and devs at it and expect the problem to be solved.

Then nobody will throw money at any project at all, because everything eventually will be solved by "magick".

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It's not magic, it's adoption rates. I'm not saying the money or resources are useless, but as it is right now, I think more people would benefit from actually trying to use rust in more large-scale projects (like R4L, windows, android, redox, servo, etc.) and using that experience to inform actual language development. I don't think it makes sense to do a full revamp of the compiler until projects like those are actually proven. In the meantime it makes more sense to allocate funding/dev resources to those projects (or at least the open source ones)

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

That's one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn't have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you're asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I'm not saying more money wouldn't help, I'm saying throwing money at it isn't generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.