From the closing paragraph, I feel like he’s under the impression that Rust-advocating contributors are putting Rust’s interests (e.g. “legitimizing it” by getting it in the kernel) above the kernel itself.
Like with any emerging technology, early adopters become advocates because they’re convinced of the technology’s superiority. Once they organize into a community and get to know each other personally, then at least some of the motivation shifts: you want to see your friends succeed, you want to be part of a community that is making change, you want your early adoption to be “validated” by mainstream success, etc.
This can cloud technical judgment (not saying this is happening here, but if it were, it wouldn’t be surprising)
I mean the post Linus initially responded to did contain[1] a patch removing a kernel define, asking if anyone had any objections over removing that define, just to make the resulting Rust code a little nicer looking.
If we're going to be serious about who is being toxic, it's definitely Linus in this thread. Guy makes first mistake (by a very broad interpretation of "mistake". Perhaps "misunderstanding"?). Linus goes nuclear. And while his reasoning is sound, his argumentation cycles between threats, bad-faith arguments, and just plain old yelling.
What some people don't understand is that the Linux kernel isn't 'led' in any meaningful sense. But I suppose some projects don't need actual leadership? I once was recommended a Metallica documentary, because "It's amusing to see what emotionally stunted 40-50 year olds who have never had anyone tell them 'No' since 18 will do." That's the Linus vibe -- somehow we've limped along to here. Seriously, read the rust/rust-lang issues/RFCs. Those people sound like grownups contrasted to this.
Not so sure about this. I see a good amount of acrimony toward C, C++, Go, Zig, etc. from the Rust side.
I'm not understanding that if Linuxrusters want to do more their own thing and get rid of those rules and discussions they just fork off a real Linuxrustkernel and go off?
The "political correct" toxicity comes from that group which continously wants to undermine long beforehand agreeds frontiers... (e.g. again this panic-is-more-safe discussion).
In my opinion, in the software world, there is a large number of people who are very convinced of their own correctness. When they do something wrong or are simply mistaken, a gentle correction doesn't work. Linus is probably used to dealing with these people. I'm not saying the person he was replying to was necessarily doing that, but after a while you have an automatic response.
The beauty and horror of OSS is that anyone can contribute. Having someone scream "WTF are you doing???" every once in a while isn't a bad thing. It's not nice to hear that being directed at you, but sometimes in life it is necessary.
The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultimatum? It's crazy girlfriend/boyfriend material? It's ridiculous after one contributor tries something that Linus thinks won't work in the kernel. Ridiculous. Just say no.
The slander as well? "Rust’s community, in aggregate, have developed a reputation." And you know what? The C/C++/Zig/Nim/Haskell/Clojure communities have developed a reputation too, but, gosh, I don't talk about it because I know labeling groups isn't helpful/is completely non-technical.
If the kernel acquiesces to certain philosophies that are opposite to its intent as-a-kernel for many other environments and contexts it must support, a cascade of later patches could derail things completely. It may become too much effort to undo, and the project must limp along--until that mountain of tech debt costs too much to fix.
Maybe the kernel cannot fail fast for good reasons. And the Linux project cannot fail fast for equally good reasons.
And possibly, if a technically compelling reason presents itself, Linus may fully back it--even contributing to that work himself.
Too bad there was no around to do that to Linus; maybe he'd finally realize that being an asshole is generally not a correct response.
By his own standards he’s been very polite and calm. Remarkably so I’d say.
He used to be way ruder in the past, then decided to work on that and be kinder.
You can clearly see that in those emails.
The fact that he doesn’t agree with somebody and articulates why doesn’t mean he’s rude.
I have no idea what this actually refers to? "Panic is more safe"? Rust doesn't choose to panic on a failed memory allocation in the kernel, and never intended to. It was always TODO until it was implemented? Linus is using a userspace panic as an example here?
As to this thread's particular issue, the API for an allocation wasn't settled, and this is the discussion. I think the contributor was completely within his remit to say, "Heck, we could do this is a more memory safe way..." And Linus was completely right to say "Yeah, that's not how we do allocations here." The only problem is thinking being a dick is a good way to lead a community.
I think some fantasize about being able to be a dick in a FOSS project just like Linus (which feels like "if only I was a strong man dictator"), and I think that's an absurd desire. The Linux kernel is sui generis. In no other area of the world can anyone act this way, and be productive.
In this case it seems to be mutual. Even open hostility from some leading members of Zig community. Which is shame because these two languages could nicely coexist.
Trying to tweak the kernel to make integration easier in a supposed non-harmful way doesn't harm anything.
Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.
What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread.
The nearest I see is:
If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other
requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work
together.
No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about
specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally
defined.
Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics
and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but
for now, this is an under-defined place in the language.
I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language.
Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.
You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.
> Rust's UB guarantees
Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.
I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!
> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?
You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...
Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite.
I think inventing Linus quotes is unfair.
Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.