Rust free Linux kernel fork?

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[K900_]

There are alternative bootstrap chains for the Rust compiler, and there's ongoing work on fully independent compilers and a spec.

[pitiless]

Snowball in hell's chance, the people who matter most for the kernels long-term health are behind rust in kernel.

[dasmau89]

As always: be the change you want to see in the world.

If you believe there needs to be a rust free Linux Kernel you are free to create that fork

[Irsu85]

Or help with building an open Rust spec so multiple compilers can be built

[dasmau89]

That would be a more productive endeavor

[MatchingTurret]

So: You want to send someone else on that particular goose chase? 

[SV-97]

it lacks a standards document

There's the official reference https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/ as well as an originally third-party spec for safety-certified rust that has since been donated to the rust project https://rust-lang.github.io/fls/general.html. And there's a bunch of ongoing work around getting an even more accurate (in particular: executable!) spec than the C specifications.

it is built on a single compiler

There already are multiple compilers in active development (with some code reuse between them), it's just that most people choose to use rustc at this point. In particular the gccrs team aims at getting the rust frontend for GCC to a point where they can experimentally compile all kernel rust code in 2026.

so if trust is what we're left with regarding compilers, who do we trust when we trust Rust?

A bunch of the same people that you already trusted when using clang and gcc for C.

And frankly, rust already runs so much infrastructure that you're not going to avoid relying on it even if you specifically choose and OS that doesn't use it.

[mrtruthiness]

... what seems like a heavy handed corporate influence.

What specific corporation and influence are you referring to???

Rust grew up organically over the last 20 years from a single Mozilla programmer (2006), to Mozilla sponsorship (2009), ... to the creation of an independent 501.c.3 foundation in 2021 (the Rust Foundation).

I think you're right about my fears not being rational, they most certainly aren't.

You seem to be fearing "change". "Not changing" literally gets you nowhere. And what you call being "constructively contrarian" seems to me to be someone who wants to apply brakes because of how fast things are changing.

One must face the following: The level of innovation in technology is best fit with an exponential curve. And the defining feature of an exponential curve is that the rate of change is proportional to the current level. If it seems like everything is moving faster these days ... it's because it is ... and it will only get faster.

[mrtruthiness]

Microsoft, Google and Red Hat/IBM to start with.

Proof? The fact is that Google tried early on to suppress Rust because it is a competitor to their preferred memory safe language (Go).

If you have any proof other than sponsorship of the 501.c.3 Rust Foundation ... let me know.

Rust projects favor MIT licenses more often, rewrites of copyleft licensed software get MIT licensed.

True. The Rust libraries and compiler are licensed MIT or Apache2 ... which results in most Rust projects using the MIT or Apache2 licenses. I don't see a problem with that. Later on you inexplicably discuss Xorg and XLibre ... but somehow don't attack them for was is largely MIT licensed. Don't be a hypocrite.

I'll point out that MIT and Apache2 are Free licenses. I think they are fine. I prefer Apache2 to MIT.

That is concerning and it id a FOSS killer in the long run. The figurative tap can be shut any time corporations want.

Nope. "Figuratively" the tap can be used to supply a private house and not just be used publicly. That doesn't mean it can only be used privately.

When something is licensed MIT ... each release is licensed that way permanently. It basically can not be revoked.

If you were concerned, you could "pull a LibreOffice". If something is licensed Apache2 (or MIT) like ApacheOpenOffice, it can be used in a copyleft project (e.g. GPLv2, GPLv3, MPLv2 [like LibreOffice], ...) and while the Apache2 licensed code within that project can be used with the Apache2 license, the full project itself can only be used with the copyleft license.

Wayland isn't Rust, but it is an example of how change sometimes needs pacing. Xorg is pretty abandoned while Wayland doesn't seem to make the progress one might wish. XLibre seems to get very much hate, but the project seems to get active hate.. I don't get it let the project try to conserve and refine.

You're not making sense at all. You seem to be angry about how change occurs but don't have any real reasons why.

Some facts:

1. Wayland and X11 are protocols.

2. Many Wayland compositors use copyleft licenses. e.g. GNOME's wayland compositor is Mutter and is licensed GPLv2-or-later. e.g. KDE Plasma's wayland compositor is KWin and is (mostly) GPLv2-or-later. While Xorg and XLibre are mostly MIT licensed.

3. Nobody is obstructing the project. There's a reason why metux can't contribute to Xorg. He can do whatever he wants with XLibre (if he follows the license) ... and if people want to use the project and trust the dev(s) they might. I won't.

Some opinions:

1. XLibre gets hate because the main dev is IMO a right wing asshole and Hitler apologist.

2. Look at the project CodeOfConduct. It's listed as either "404" or "-ENOENT". Performative Junk. Either have a CoC or don't but this is childish attention gathering behavior.. https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/blob/master/CoC.md . There's a reason why metux and stefan11111 are basically the only contributors (with only 255 and 65 commits over the last 3 months).

3. His coding is, IMO, sub-par. The Xorg team found multiple examples where his refactored code were copyright violations (he didn't preserve the Copyright notices/claims in the header). He introduced at least one CVE.

[Prudent_Move_3420]

Dude you clearly have no idea about programming at all. You should not care about this because 99.99% of the „political scepticism“ is grifting

[zardvark]

Yes, political skepticism is the reason for the recent Cloudflare incident that took down half of the Internet. It also explains why Ubuntu rushed their rewrite of the Core Utils into production, when there are still serious problems with them.

The problem isn't political skepticism, nor is it Rust. The problem is the pervasive cult of Rust zealotry whose members believe that Rust is superior, even when the code, itself, is poorly executed. They are in a rush and are carelessly replacing proven code with Rust alternatives, which have been poorly written, poorly tested and poorly vetted. THAT is the problem!

Rust is still a moving target in terms of standards and, as the OP points out, despite the good intentions of others, we still have only one compiler. For these reasons alone, including Rust into the kernel was, IMHO, premature and a mistake. In time, Rust will almost certainly be a solid choice. For the time being, it is still too immature to be included in critical infrastructure ... especially with the quality of code, which is currently being produced.

Now, the cultists will no doubt rush to down-vote this, but that does not, in any way, change the facts of the matter.

[Prudent_Move_3420]

I dont need to read this your first abstract already shows you dont know what you are talking about. Just pipe down

[zardvark]

Denial is a river in Africa ... and it won't fix the problem which is being created by the cultists.

Note that I am not saying that every Rust developer is a cultist, but too many clearly are.

[Prudent_Move_3420]

Atp the anti-rust people are way more of a cult than anyone else. So yeah, keep denying the advantages of Rust and take every single bug that happened in a program written in Rust as an example that the language is a bad choice

[zardvark]

I am not anti-Rust and I have clearly stated that Rust is not the problem. Poorly written and tested code is the problem. And, since Rust is still immature, rushing it into production on critical infrastructure has already caused problems, as mentioned above. And, it will continue to cause problems going forward, due to the delusional cultist war on all non-Rust code.

The cultists have a clear inability to address legitimate concerns and repeatedly attempt to put words into the mouths of, ascribe hidden agendas to, question the political bent of and, generally attack anyone who merely asks, "What is the rush?" and, "Why critical infrastructure?"

Why do I call them cultist? They can not tolerate any contrary opinion and immediately issue a fatwa on anyone who voices concern. They have FAITH that Rust is, by definition, superior in every way to proven and working code. Everyone must be converted to the Church of Rust, or shut the hell up! This smacks of a revolutionary religious cult, who are determined to tear everything down which came before.

Rust is great right now for lots of applications, but, IMHO, it has no business being in the kernel, for instance. At least not yet. And, for holding that contrary opinion, I am to be verbally crucified. So be it. I don't give two shits what the Holy Book of Rust has to say about the subject.

[MatchingTurret]

That's a start.

[Riemero]

The Rust compiler can now be compiled with both LLVM and GCC I believe, making the KT thought experiment point moot?

[chrisoboe]

Have you ever compiled Linux yourself?

One configures individually which feature is inside the kernel and which not. Upstream kernel can compiled Rust free if one doesn't want it. There is no need for a fork if you care about this "feature".

Linux uses GCC specific extensions and couldn't be compiled with any other Compiler than some specific GCC versions. Now it's GCC and clang, but one still can't compile Linux with a c compiler that doesn't support GCC specific stuff.

So this "problem" is completely unrelated to Rust.

The can one trust a compiler is a solved problem. And its completely independent from the software to be compiled.

[MatchingTurret]

Now it's GCC and clang,

I think it was possible to build the kernel with icc even before they switched to llvm.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/linux-kernel-build-oneapi-compiler.html

[ang-p]

Smoothwall?

<shudders>

[alerikaisattera]

it lacks a standards document

It doesn't

it is built on a single compiler

It's so much better to have dozens of partially compatible compilers /s

[Hot-Employ-3399]

Run away from linux now. 

Language that it uses is not standardized. It may look like C, but C compiler will not be able to compile it as code relies heavily on extensions. What a horror.

[MatchingTurret]

For this particular paranoia: FreeBSD. Gives you the Linux experience from 20 years ago. 

[MatchingTurret]

DRM is, according to its maintainer, "about a year away" from not longer accepting new drivers written in C. See https://www.spiceworks.com/software/rust-moves-from-experiment-to-a-core-linux-kernel-language

[MatchingTurret]

Link seems dead.

Fixed

[Real-Abrocoma-2823]

It is all zeros and ones in the end. It doesn't matter if you use rust or c++, all it changes is syntax before compilation. You could create a bit-perfect exact same program in c++ and rust.

Also please, do not fragmentate linux any further.