Skip to main content


#Rust seems to have grown an individualist community, with all its tiny packages hosted in a non-curated repo, with its rejection of copyleft, and with its disregard of #FreeSoftware “community standards” developed by distro folks over the years.

I feel that introducing Rust right into once collectively-developed code bases at the core of GNU/Linux will have unpredictable and detrimental effects.
I share your sentiment WRT. individualism. Abeit it'd be tempted to say it's not a Rust-specific issue but shared among most "modern" tech stacks.

Cynical me would say it has to do with the intersection between capitalism and open source, pushing people to self promote their work as much as possible to advance their professional career. (To be clear: I'm personally guilty of doing that to some extent).

I'm not only answering to rant though 😀

The recent Nix social-related issues made me dig quite a bit into free software community management best practices and think more about how to facilitate collaboration (and not competition) between the community members.

> #FreeSoftware “community standards” developed by distro folks over the years.

Could you expand a bit on that? Are you talking about technical standards or social standards here?

If you're talking about social standards, could you point me to some resources, I'd like to read more about it.
What are the recent Nix social-related issues? I'm out of touch with everything.

Or is this related to the Flakes and RFC discussions? I saw at least some post about that.
This entry was edited (2 years ago)
I think I share those sentiments. I have seen similar sentiments in the majority of Haskell community too (thought I don't want to generalize them as copyleft-unfriendly). Individualist community, yes.
Hadn't heard that about the Haskell community, I'd have expected them to be more community oriented since they come from a science background.

I think part of the issue with software like Rust is that it's based around technical superiority as the ultimate goal, and "open source" is merely seen as the better way to achieve technical superiority.
I have seen prolific contributors like Ed Kmett speaking against using copyleft licenses in favour of BSD-like licenses.

Also `stack new' without any commandline switches create default package template files with BSD3 license. (One example of someone who raised this issue - https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/5459)
This will be preaching to choir, but I don't think you should be allowed to call a libre license cancerous when you work for companies that prioritize growth above everything else.

Just a thought.
So the solution to reproducible builds in Go isn't something like Cargo.lock that specifies precise versions of all dependencies with checksums, but literally copying and pasting the entire dependency graph of everything into every package? LMAO
and what if someday someone makes a version control system that's better than Git?
It also means that the entire Go ecosystem is *forced* to use one version control system. So not only is it coupled to GitHub, it's coupled to Git. I think Git is great, but I also think it's a horrible idea to *require* one specific version control system.
Go sounds like an even worse shitshow than the Node ecosystem.
Perhaps not a trivial task, but what stops Google to add support for this new Git-killer to Go?

This website uses cookies to recognize revisiting and logged in users. You accept the usage of these cookies by continue browsing this website.