News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hard Rust requirements from May onward for all Debian ports by noir_lord on Saturday November 01, 2025 @11:44AM (#45782569)
I think that's unkind absent any proof otherwise which you haven't posted.

In reality a lot of the heavily used parts of Linux (and open source generally) are going to have some commercial involvement or are we suggesting that no one should be paid by any of the companies backing Linux who use Linux because to me that sounds worse.

Whether you like it or not, Linux/Open Source hasn't been entirely the preserve of unpaid people doing it for fun for a long time.

Re:Hard Rust requirements from May onward for all Debian ports by noosphr on Saturday November 01, 2025 @02:09PM (#45783870)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

I don't understand how people keep giving the benefit of the doubt to corporations.

They aren't people. They feel no guilt and have no shame.

Re:Hard Rust requirements from May onward for all Debian ports by adwn on Saturday November 01, 2025 @04:17PM (#45784958)
Julian Klode is not a corporation, though, so we should give him the benefit of a doubt.
Re:Hard Rust requirements from May onward for all Debian ports by noosphr on Saturday November 01, 2025 @06:08PM (#45785866)
The whole thread started someone making the wrong point that:

>They are of no commercial interest to Ubuntu.

Which is plainly false.

Julian can believe whatever he wants, in fact the more naively idealistic he is the better for Canonical.

The fact of the matter is that corporate Linux's benefits from impossible to run setups. That's the whole business model. The more convoluted the setup is the more money they make. Rust fits into this business model perfectly.

You'd think people would have learned this after the Nth rug pull from supposed champions of free software like RedHat.

Re:Hard Rust requirements from May onward for all Debian ports by bfkwlfkjf on Sunday November 02, 2025 @10:11AM (#45790865)
My whole point, which you've missed, is that the _interest_ is what we should be looking at. I don't care if he says he does or doesn't act on it. He has the interest.