There is 32-bit x86 tier 1 targets like i686-unknown-linux-gnu.
> The only Tier 1 architectures are [...] only the absolute mainstream. Not exactly a bastion of architecture support.
Tier 1 means that the target has the full testsuite run against it for each single pull request. Running the CI is computationally extremely complex, and it is hard to provide a reliable and fast CI service for most architectures.
That no to say that Rust shouldn't be considered, but maybe initially for new development or selective rewrites. Some of the mentioned, like nscd or devd in particular, shouldn't be that high on the list. The ZFSd should be fairly safe, as that's mainly needed on the larger platforms.
This is also why we LTS versions.
Sure, it's nice to be able to tinker and hack to see if you can upgrade them yourselves, but is it worth maintaining architecture support for that kind of use case? Not asserting that is definitely not, but I think it's worth considering.
oh, my sweet summer child...
So the main set of platforms you're looking at are ones that are functional enough to have modern, stable C compilers, aren't too quirky that reasonably portable C code would "just" work, and yet ones that you don't already have support for in Rust. Outside of the embedded space, there's like... fewer than 5 architectures left, the most notable of which probably being Alpha.
... can you invite me? This sounds great.
E.G. Curiosity rover is doing just fine running on millions of lines of C.
https://vdocuments.mx/monitoring-the-execution-of-space-craf...
If it's going to impact OS stability and decrease performance and portability of the humble, dependable, simple C, it doesn't belong in the core. C is better than Rust for OS development.
Rust is not immune to security vulnerabilities. And at the end of the day, social engineering will steal more data than "hacking the mainframe". Why break in when you can just ask to be let in?
OpenBSD has a great security track record because they resist excessive change and prefer simplicity. For those who want to add Rust to the core of FreeBSD my primary question: is it really necessary? Or is it just because a bunch of Rustaceans want to?
I want to point out one more thing: Rust is not a simple language by any stretch. It's equal to in complexity to C++ (yet without decades of established "good practices"). It is much preferable to have an easier to understand core and move the complexity outward—for improved stability and robustness. The core OS by nature of what it does needs to access raw resources in an "unsafe" manner. Rust kernel code will be littered with unsafe blocks and unnecessary complexity.
Sure.
But running on OpenBSD doesn't solve application level vulnerabilities. And sure - OpenBSD may help limit the ability of an attacker to leverage one vuln into compromising the entire system. But if the original attack was important enough, that's cold comfort.
Bfha... the link is a thread by the FreeBSD devs. Stop it with this language evangelist strawman.
I don’t think it was your intention, but what you just said makes me want to applaud more heavy-handed efforts to make the switch away from C/C++.
So COBOL everywhere it is. Let it be written, let it be done.
> According to research, up to 850 billion lines of COBOL code are currently running in nearly 30,000 organizations, typically in critical production environments. 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies rely on it. Never has there been this much COBOL in circulation and the volume is only likely to increase for the foreseeable future.
https://www.chrly.pt/en/2023/06/14/cobol-the-immortal-langua...
E.g. at one end of the spectrum you have Python where you have to write explicit tests for typos and type errors.
At the other end of the spectrum you have formal verification languages like Dafny that may not require any tests to be written.
Rust is somewhere in-between. It has a very strong type system and lots of features that make memory errors and business errors less likely than in most other languages. You still need some tests, but not as many as with C/C++, Python, JavaScript, etc.
It's much more feasibly to be secure by construction.
That said, I'm a big Rust believer and think it's the right tool for the job in a lot of situations where the historical answer was C or C++. Maybe it's the right tool for FreeBSD, too.