deleted by creator
Microsoft already uses ripgrep in vscode which they distribute as a proprietary build.
Since I know that most of the younger open source folks are obsessed with MIT for some reason
The bigtech actively peddled the idea that copyleft licenses are somehow evil and less free than permissive licenses. Their intention was of course to encourage free labor that they could exploit. Unfortunately, many in the community supported that idea due to vested interests, or uncritically bought into the propaganda.
FreeBSD seems to thrive on a mit like license - why can’t Linux do the same?
According to what metrics is FreeBSD thriving?
Their own - did you read up on their status reports so far this year?
What’s your take on freebsd and how development and the system is going. Are they ruined by exploitation?
Given the long history of companies not upstreaming to BSD (WindRiver, PlayStation, Apple), I would say yea, it’s fairly obvious BSDs are exploited? Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
You might see short term gains because companies can innovate without giving back but yeah, definitely not the kind of stuff I want to support.
Imagine for a moment if iOS was GPL.
Ok, to be fair, they would probably have done the same like Google with Android.
Google and many other phone manufacturers contributed a lot to the upstream kernel because of android.
But would rather have another kernel because GPL. What google did, was creating a (mostly closed) ecosystem they control on top of the open source base.
Exploited? This is what the license is made for. You can take freebsd and do what you like - it’s free as in air, no strings attached other than the licence text.
You might not understand why the authors use MIT-like licensing
I tend not to understand cucks either
Insightful comment! This is what we need to build a good community!!
If you don’t like MIT/BSD licensing it’s fine with me, but to claim those that use it is stupid or exploited because of their choices. These are people far smarter than you and capable of making their own choices.
My understanding is that FreeBSD has no issues with Apple basing their OS on FreeBSD. But you guys probably know better
FreeBSD has over and over again been taken advantage of by companies that haven’t contributed virtually anything back.
deleted by creator
Are you talking about Minix and how they went BSD license in 2000 to attract users? Seeing as it went downhill pretty fast in the 90’s?
deleted by creator
Yeah - it would have been nice of them to inform him. I still don’t think he was “screwed over” by anyone and it seems like he doesn’t either. He updated his code for them without asking what they were using it for. And as he’s against the ME itself he claims he would not have cooperated if he had known.
Well the point is that he wouldn’t have the need to know if he has used something like GPL.
deleted by creator
So do you see MIT as a potential backdoor for embrace extend extinguish? And a general erosion of the philosophy of open source? I tend to like GPL and MIT both. I lean more towards copyleft myself but I have come to appreciate a more permissive license. even leaving out smaller developers, if a big company decides they’re intent on making money using open source tools, I don’t think they’re gonna change their whole gameplan because something in the toolchain is GPL licenses.
If there’s enough community outrage, they might just get the attention of one of the several open source foundations
Honest question…why?
Some have better ux, some support more platforms out of the box. I don’t find it a good idea trying to replace everything though.
I only tend to replace if all of those are met:
- there are neat additional features or a performance gain that’s noticeable in regular use
- there is some maintenance history
- It doesn’t completely break my workflow.
So far, only things I’ve actually replaced are aliasing
lstoexa/eza, and switched toripgrepfor most of my uses ofgrep.coreutils-hybrid (UUTILS for Arch Linux)
UUTILS Site & IndexLooks neat, but again, 99% of those utils I’ve never ever thought “this shit too slow” or “UX sucks”. Replacing for the sake of replacing I’m not too keen on.
They also have the benefit of being in a memory safe language and being cross-platform. Rust does actually have some advantages when it comes to making secure & stable tooling.
This aims to be a drop-in replacement for GNU coreutils and might actually serve to increase security, stability, & speed across the system as a ton of stuff rely on coreutils.
Now it’s still not complete, so you can’t just replace everything but I’ve actually noticed an improvement in my system with hybrid.I know, but coreutils also literally never broke on me as they are. To me, the whole point of coreutils is that they’re just… there. I’ll leave the decision to change bundled tooling to distro maintainers.
I’ll also be perfectly honest: from a developer standpoint, end-users caring about the language a tool was developed with is, in the end, a pretty weird concept to me. Memory safety and cross platform compilation is DX stuff. Nothing tells you as a user that the thing you’re using isn’t sprinkling
unsafeeverywhere, in the end… The application itself doing what it advertises is what I’d expect most users to care about. Especially for stuff as old and relatively stable as most coreutils.Ah, except Electron. Fuck most Electron apps.
If you go to the uutils repo you can see that it’s making proper use of fuzzing, test, etc. and only makes use of unsafe in necessary areas. Uutils is also more consistent with modern standards thanks to
clap& uniform design, has out of the box selinux support, etc.The
unsafekeyword isn’t inherently “unsafe”, nore does it disable any checks contrary to what some believe.if you use a reference in unsafe code, it will still be checked.
Also many distros are already packaging uutils do to it “growing into remarkably robust shape”, it’s just not ready to completely replace coreutils quite yet and so it’s not up for consideration by distros to ditch coreutils until it’s at least at parity. (That’s why I make use of hybrid and not outright replacing everything).
The point is not the language, it’s how the project is making use of the language and uutils is doing a lot right.
Utilities built in Rust have a higher potential for better security, all else being equal.
Uhhhhh, they do?
I don’t really thing the security ‘guarantees’ of rust matter that much.
I think it’s a better language to work in than C or C++, though. That’s not a reason to change utilities now, but a larger Rust ecosystem is always better in my humble opinion.
Yes that’s the major selling point in the Rust language in my opinion. Memory safety. Most of the security issues you hear about are because of mismanaged memory, specifically buffer overflows. My understanding is that Rust reduces risk of those by catching them at compile time.
Because Rust is better, hurr-durr.
Forgor the /s
deleted by creator
Turns out Lemmy isn’t better at understanding sarcasm than Reddit lol.
If the current tools work fine, have decades of historic support and battle testing, and the alternatives offer little to no net benefit, uhh, why?
But rust
Aye, I can’t argue with that
Is Rust Web Scale?
Battle hardened > new
Unless the new has a killer feature set worth the trade off in potential bugs
I think that’s fair.
Eventually, the Rust-alternatives will be battle-hardened too and we can simply choose what suits us best.
It’s a good time for software, honestly.
Agreed that competition only helps us users
Are you still using bash?
Like many others, I don’t replace old tools with new ones, simply because it is written in Rust. For example, fzf is a very novel and useful tool that’s written in Go. (FYI: Fzf has a Rust alternative called skim). I’m going to restrict the rest of the post to the context of this thread - Rust CLI/TUI programs that I like. But by no means are they the only new ones I like, or always a replacement for the old ones.
fd and ripgrep (rg) have 2 things in common that give them edge over their older counterparts. First is that both are extremely fast compared to their predecessors. Second is that both support a modern (perl-compatible) version of regex syntax that many programming languages support.
Zellij is a terminal multiplexer like Tmux. However, Zellij IMO has one huge advantage over Tmux and screen - you don’t need to take a tutorial or read a user guide just to get started. Everything is discoverable and intuitive. Zellij has the potential to replace TMux as the dominant terminal multiplexer in the near future.
You may find zoxide, atuin and starship as good extensions to your terminal experience, depending on your tastes. Zoxide is a smart directory changer (alt for cd) with good integration all around - with a lot of shells, alternatives (data import), editors (emacs, nvim, etc), file browsers (ranger, nnn, etc) and even mail client (aerc). Atuin replaces the history part of GNU Readline. But lately, it has started gaining features not found in readline, like encrypted history and cross-device history sync. Starship may be a bit fancy for shell prompts - but I find its configuration format to be simpler than the old method. It also supports several shells giving you a uniform experience across shells.
GPG-TUI is a TUI frontend to GnuPG. It’s useful simply because the GnuPG UI is terrible. Meanwhile, Sequoia PGP is a tool that aims to replace GnuPG altogether. It has some lofty ambitions and has forced the OpenPGP ecosystem to advance a bit. Some of their innovations aim to solve the drawbacks of old OpenPGP - like lack of PKI (instead of just WoT) and Perfect forward secrecy in certain modes. Its defaults are also more sane and modern compared to GnuPG.
Git-UI (Rust) and LazyGit (Go) are TUI frontends for Git - they have no alternatives. I can recommend either of them if you are a heavy user of git - especially interactive staging and interactive rebasing. Meanwhile, git-interactive-rebase-tool is a tool specifically designed to manage interactive rebases.
If you are into coding, you may find Tokei useful. It is tool for counting Lines of code (LoC) in your projects, segregated by language. Hyperfine, from the developer of fd, is used to benchmark applications over several runs, with a lot of configuration options. Bat is a terminal pager, again from the developer of fd. It supports syntax highlighting. I often find uses for that. I’m not aware of another tool with the exact same functionality.
Finally, nushell is showing a lot of promise as a shell with more modern features. It extends the structured data paradigm from powershell.
Note that
skimperforms worse thanfzf. There’s a new matcher in Rust callednucleowhich is faster, but it currently doesn’t have a cli and can only be used inside Helix editor (hx)nuis probably the best shell for ad-hoc data processing, handling all my daily needs in one expression.fdandrghave another thing in common, that they’re both 50% shorter than their traditional alternatives /sfdis pretty cool. It offers a good simplification overfind’s syntax.find -name "*file*"vsfd file.rgI don’t use often except for colorized output. A lot of Nvim plugins also prefer to use ripgrep over grep.nu is probably the best shell for ad-hoc data processing, handling all my daily needs in one expression.
I am really struggling with this, I heard about nu shell some time ago, but the fact that you had to learn some form of new language made me reluctant to actually try it. As a fisher user I want to have sane usable defaults, without having to learn just another programming language for a “tool”.
What am I missing?
It kinda fills a niche.
I use fish for simple command pipelines as well. But traditional shells are not as good when I need to do anything “structured”, because they treats almost any value as a string and don’t have anonymous functions. The first problem means that you have to parse a string again and again to do anything useful, the second means that when both pipe and
xargsfails you are doomed.
Nu solves both of the big problems that matters when you want to do rather complex but ad-hoc processing of data. And with a rather principled design, nu is very easy to learn (fish is already way better than something POSIX like bash though).Personally another important reason is that I have a Windows machine at work and nushell is much easier than pwsh.
Btw fish is also going to be a “tool in rust” soon :)
Forgot to mention stacked-git (stg). This is a tool to deal with patch stacks - much like the age old quilt tool often used by kernel hackers. Unlike quilt, stg uses git to manage a stack of patches. This tool was originally written in Python. It was recently rewritten in Rust by the same team.
Having used stg, it’s like having multiple staging indexes in git. This allows you to craft a good commit history like the one you get from using interactive rebasing. Unlike interactive rebasing, you don’t have to wait till finishing the feature, in order to achieve that result. If you are a git user and haven’t given stg a try yet, I strongly recommend you do. It’s a nice tool to have in your development tool chest.
Thanks for your comprehensive comment!
Just to add - gitui doesn’t (yet) have the commit signing, so for commiting stuff you still have to use command line, but other features are pretty useful.
I’ve not replaced anything just because it’s Rust, but I have replaced a fair share of tools, just because their newer Rust equivalents are much better
What for? Even if they have improvements in some areas, the original POSIX standard utilities will continue to be needed for script compatibility. You’re not going to swap them out - at best you can add them and then you just have an additional code base to support with additional attack surface to protect.
The uutils project is aiming for full compatibility though, so eventually you will be able to just swap them out.
What for?
Personally, I’m a huge fan in unifying software under one language.
I don’t know man, those tools - they seem rusty to me.
The thread needed the joke. Had you not done it, I’d have offered some flavor of it. Bravo!
No. Those tools are tried and well tested. Yes there may still be bugs lurking but simply rewriting in Rust does not guarantee safety. I do hope that this: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-01-unsafe-rust.html doesn’t get used in that repo.
That said, I’ll take a look in say five years and see how they are getting on.
I’m really looking forward to using something like rust coreutils, but only once the testing passes the gnu test suite (https://github.com/uutils/coreutils-tracking)
Sounds dumb. Like when Java was supposed to be able to do everything, but this is faster. Doesn’t make it not dumb.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it dumb.
Rust is much more of a drop in replacement for C/C++ than Java ever was, and it carries some serious benefits over C/C++ like proper memory management and a modern library and packaging system.
Rebasing to Rust might genuinely be a good idea for some of these tools.
What’s funny is Java solved an issue that is pretty much non-existent in today’s environment: compatibility.
It’s much less like the Wild West these days. People have a clearer picture of what to support, how to support it, and generic tools to abstract platform-specific code.
I like Java. I think they did good things and had a pragmatic approach to the problems they were trying to solve.
But time goes on, and this young discipline progresses fast. It’ll be interesting to see decades from now what languages survive and which ones don’t.
I predict as time goes on, we’ll get fewer big languages (popular, widespread, useful, etc.) and they will stick around for much longer.
Kind of like human language, if you think about it.
What alternatives? Most of them do different things, often optimized for interactive usecase but lacking in scriptability.
And just because it’s in Rust, doesn’t mean it’s better in code quality or even safer.
I do like fd though.
nushell, since it uses more structured data, is basically moving in this direction.
I am using alacritty for years, just recently discovered helix. So I guess I am a natural convert.
Removed by mod
No, but I’d gladly do so if it shows a considerable performance improvement compared to their “standard” counterparts.
