Misc. BSD/UNIX Rust for Linux maintainer steps down in frustration with 'nontechnical nonsense'

[J65nko]

From https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/...er_steps_down/:

Efforts to add Rust code to the Linux kernel suffered a setback last Thursday when one of the maintainers of the Rust for Linux project stepped down – citing frustration with "nontechnical nonsense."

Wedson Almeida Filho, a software engineer at Microsoft who has overseen the Rust for Linux project, announced his resignation in a message to the Linux kernel development mailing list.

"I am retiring from the project," Filho declared. "After almost four years, I find myself lacking the energy and enthusiasm I once had to respond to some of the nontechnical nonsense, so it's best to leave it up to those who still have it in them."

[yeti]

Efforts to add Rust code to the Linux kernel suffered a setback last Thursday when one of the maintainers of the Rust for Linux project stepped down – citing frustration with "nontechnical nonsense."

I might decide to like that. \o/

But that won't save me from Tor switching to ARTI. *sigh!*

[blackhole]

So one of the Microsofter's intent on pushing a "memory safe", corporate sponsored language into the Linux kernel has spat his dummy out and quit, because the kernel developers are too focused on developing the kernel, in the language which the kernel is written... I suspect this is just a minor bump in the road and the corporate backers of the Linux kernel, who pay the foundation, who pay Torvalds and other key figures, will get what they want.

Rust is "security theatre" bankrolled and pushed by "Big Tech" - and when they push something hard, one should always assume it's for their business agenda and profit, first and foremost. One should then learn from history and examine the track records of those involved: When did they care about security? How did they respond to vulnerabilities in the past and how many CVEs are logged against their products. And now, suddenly, they really care about a "memory safe" language. The origins of Rust are in the Mozilla Corporation, known for the Netscape based Mozilla and Firefox browsers, but nowadays mostly known for "activism" and copious amounts of hot air (all funded by google).

It's a quasi "solution" to a problem, which exists due to sloppy corporate development - it's being talked up and foisted on everyone and anyone, and those who question it are labelled as irresponsible dinosaurs. Sound familiar? If you go against the corporate narrative, expect to get cancelled and/or beaten over the head with a CoC.

Ultimately it's about money and control / monopoly - you don't have to spend so much on debugging and security auditing if you're perceived to be using this "industry approved" solution. Then if eventually, if you're not using it, no one will insure you, then if you're not writing your code in it, no one will use your project/product, then it's win, win for the "Big Tech" cartel who own and control the whole thing ("oh but you can fork it", they will say...).

Industry wants Rust partially because it's seen as an insurable "I can now [continue to] write shit code and the language will ensure it's "memory safe"" get out of jail free card - because of this, they will gladly sleepwalk into a future owned and controlled by the likes of Microsoft.

Theo de Raadt has said little about it publicly, so far as I can tell. This one comment from a few years ago was reposted all over the likes of the reddit cesspool, promoting outrage and hand wringing from the Rust parrots.

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2

[J65nko]

IMHO it mainly is a social thing..

The Linux kernel developers is a group that has developed social and cultural customs over an long period of time. It is an established group of co-workers, who are accustomed to doing things in a certain way. Now comes an outsider, who in a way disrupts the status quo, how things have been done in the past. Social inertia resists change of direction just like physical inertia does.

Introducing Rust can also be seen as a criticism of the developers. You all cannot do memory safe programming in C, so we will fix this with a new tool.

My objection would be: Why is Rust introduced to the Linux kernel, when the language is still evolving and has not even been standardized yet.

[Onauk]

Originally Posted by J65nko

IMHO it mainly is a social thing..

The Linux kernel developers is a group that has developed social and cultural customs over an long period of time. It is an established group of co-workers, who are accustomed to doing things in a certain way. Now comes an outsider, who in a way disrupts the status quo, how things have been done in the past. Social inertia resists change of direction just like physical inertia does.

Introducing Rust can also be seen as a criticism of the developers. You all cannot do memory safe programming in C, so we will fix this with a new tool.

My objection would be: Why is Rust introduced to the Linux kernel, when the language is still evolving and has not even been standardized yet.

This opinion is shared by Linus Torvalds, interviewed by ZDnet[1]:

Switching to a more modern topic, the introduction of the Rust language into Linux, Torvalds is disappointed that its adoption isn't going faster. "I was expecting updates to be faster, but part of the problem is that old-time kernel developers are used to C and don't know Rust. They're not exactly excited about having to learn a new language that is, in some respects, very different. So there's been some pushback on Rust."

On top of that, Torvalds commented, "Another reason has been the Rust infrastructure itself has not been super stable."

[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-...-that-matters/

[e1-531g]

Originally Posted by J65nko

IMHO it mainly is a social thing..

The Linux kernel developers is a group that has developed social and cultural customs over an long period of time. It is an established group of co-workers, who are accustomed to doing things in a certain way. Now comes an outsider, who in a way disrupts the status quo, how things have been done in the past. Social inertia resists change of direction just like physical inertia does.

Introducing Rust can also be seen as a criticism of the developers. You all cannot do memory safe programming in C, so we will fix this with a new tool.

My objection would be: Why is Rust introduced to the Linux kernel, when the language is still evolving and has not even been standardized yet.

I agree with social thing and it seems Dirk Hohndel also agrees with that:
Keynote: Linus Torvalds in Conversation with Dirk Hohndel
Published September 16 2024 at The Linux Foundation YouTube channel
https://youtu.be/OM_8UOPFpqE?si=snUrOnlxVfPPAkXI&t=602

Linus later on in conversation brought up interesting remark that C in Linux kernel has some additional rules that are not part of C standard. I guess Rust in kernel also will develop them eventually.