you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Providing fodder for the "ermagerd, rust is evil" crowd, even though it has nothing to do with rust.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No it's just a news about the pointless, corporate rust rewrite of GNU coreutils being a shitshow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    uutils is rewritten by a corporation? Huh, TIL. I guess their website is wrong:

    uutils is a community-driven, open-source effort maintained by volunteers around the world. There is no company behind it, just contributors who care about the future of foundational command-line tools.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Claims are easy. Actions are what matters. rewriting FOSS program with GPL license under MIT license is only possible from either a corporate backed project (because it makes takeover of a lot of FOSS infra so much simpler for them), or an extremely stupid team. both cases are equally bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Oh then it must be because of the MIT license!

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That's my biggest pet peeve with it honestly. My theory is still that it's a mistake that modern languages/tooling create a LICENSE file for you. In the before-times, when someone posted a project without then you told them and they educated themselves. Some chose GPL, some MIT, all fine, as long you do it with an educated mind. But now, the file gets created, technically legally binding contract of sorts, and the authors simply never bothered to check.

    Change my mind: Linux is only still highly relevant because of GPL, not despite of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments