This is a follow-up to Jon’s original post on Carefully (but purposefully) oxidising Ubuntu and Julian’s migration spec for 25.10. We promised transparency throughout this process, and this post is written in that spirit. What happened after the announcement Following the decision to adopt rust-coreutils, we got to work. Any package shipped by default in Ubuntu must be promoted to Ubuntu Main, which requires passing a thorough security review. We quickly assembled an internal team spanning Ubun...
So open source is only for people who already in the club then? Who gets to have a say? What are the restrictions on that say?
MIT defenders are laveyian satanists until someone has an opinion they disagree with lol.
I’m genuinely astounded that a recurring argument for simply dismissing suggestions to change the license to the one the original project had is “that’s my purse, I don’t know you!”
I could understand where you’re coming from if the people were, to a man, rude and demanding. Having read lots of threads about rust/mit rewrites of c/gpl stuff and participated in several, they’re pretty often just like me: politely presenting a perfectly reasonable argument even when met with very defensive pushback.
The requirements are not at all strict. Submit even one bug report or issue, or do literally anything positive rather than show up for the first time and whine about the management of the project or whatever out of nowhere and then maybe people will take your opinion more seriously.
The threads are indeed filled with people like you given that in a number of your posts you went and complained about Rust as a whole. This is ignoring that the other highly upvoted (license-related) top-level post in this very thread (before it got deleted by mods) called the project maintainers cucks and so on.
Wow, where are those requirements published? I’m sure more people would follow the rules of the project if it were made clear that input is contingent upon some existing level of community involvement…
Of course, I have never seen such rules put in place except to exclude the most base mlm scam spammers on mailing lists, but that’s neither here nor there.
Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?
Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?
Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?
Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?
Given that you replied quite positively to the dude who wrote about the maintainers being “cucks” and keep talking about the “perverse incentives of rust,” the answer is no.
E: I want to be a little more clear, rather than policing language or tone, I responded to help that person understand. The mods did what they do and I believe rightly removed the offending posts.
I do believe the conditions around rust at the present moment create a perverse incentive. Because rust is a common language for junior developers and commonly has mit licenses and is very well suited to llm analysis from a running heap or code perspective it ends up being very useful and attractive to companies who want to get rid of senior devs, use more ai and not have to contribute their work back to the public.
Yes.
Open source is more than code, it’s software for everyone including non programmers.
You don’t need to be a programmer to contribute. That’s just your bias. Anyway, I’m done with this.
So open source is only for people who already in the club then? Who gets to have a say? What are the restrictions on that say?
MIT defenders are laveyian satanists until someone has an opinion they disagree with lol.
I’m genuinely astounded that a recurring argument for simply dismissing suggestions to change the license to the one the original project had is “that’s my purse, I don’t know you!”
I could understand where you’re coming from if the people were, to a man, rude and demanding. Having read lots of threads about rust/mit rewrites of c/gpl stuff and participated in several, they’re pretty often just like me: politely presenting a perfectly reasonable argument even when met with very defensive pushback.
The requirements are not at all strict. Submit even one bug report or issue, or do literally anything positive rather than show up for the first time and whine about the management of the project or whatever out of nowhere and then maybe people will take your opinion more seriously.
The threads are indeed filled with people like you given that in a number of your posts you went and complained about Rust as a whole. This is ignoring that the other highly upvoted (license-related) top-level post in this very thread (before it got deleted by mods) called the project maintainers cucks and so on.
Anyway, now I’m actually done.
Wow, where are those requirements published? I’m sure more people would follow the rules of the project if it were made clear that input is contingent upon some existing level of community involvement…
Of course, I have never seen such rules put in place except to exclude the most base mlm scam spammers on mailing lists, but that’s neither here nor there.
Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?
Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?
Given that you replied quite positively to the dude who wrote about the maintainers being “cucks” and keep talking about the “perverse incentives of rust,” the answer is no.
I’m going to block you now, byebye.
Just literally finding any reason to say no.
E: I want to be a little more clear, rather than policing language or tone, I responded to help that person understand. The mods did what they do and I believe rightly removed the offending posts.
I do believe the conditions around rust at the present moment create a perverse incentive. Because rust is a common language for junior developers and commonly has mit licenses and is very well suited to llm analysis from a running heap or code perspective it ends up being very useful and attractive to companies who want to get rid of senior devs, use more ai and not have to contribute their work back to the public.
That’s a perverse incentive.