• lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    74·
    2 days ago

    so in a few more versions we will get the basic shell utilities enshittified in Ubuntu? Maybe a monthly subscription to be able to rename files.

      • thingsiplay@lemmy.mlEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        Some people don’t like Rust language, its eco system and community and the MIT license at all. Combine them and replace core functionality of a popular distribution, that is enshittification for some. Even though the Rust programs are compatible.

        I don’t mind MIT license and even do like Rust. But my personal problem with this decision in Ubuntu is, that these Coreutils tools in Rust are not proven yet and finished with 100% bug for bug compatibility and feature parity. So this is a premture decision in Ubuntu for my taste.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          72·
          2 days ago

          I like MIT for libraries, not a huge fan of it for core OS utilities because it just means they’ll be free to lock up features behind Ubuntu Pro or whatever it’s called. Eugh.

          • thingsiplay@lemmy.mlEnglish
            51·
            2 days ago

            I’m not sure what you mean by that. They can lock things up behind paywall, if the license is GPL too. As long as any source code of it is online available. Which it is for the Rust Utils, that’s not in Canonicals hand. And if Canonical does make changes to their own version, then these are no longer compatible software with the GNU Utils. But the point is being compatible.

            So I don’t get the fear here.

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              8·
              2 days ago

              GPL doesn’t allow for closed source forks. MIT does. You can add extra features without removing compatibility, by adding new flags, etc. Though I do struggle to come up with what premium features cp, mv and rm in particular could be expanded with.

              • thingsiplay@lemmy.mlEnglish
                32·
                2 days ago

                I don’t think that is a problem. As long as the GNU tools behave as the original ones, that’s okay. If someone wants to target Ubuntu extensions of the tools, they can. Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?

                It just feels like people are making up issues that aren’t.

                • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?

                  I mean RHEL has been kinda doing it with GPL for a few years. They share the code with you if you have a subscription, since they have to, but if you share it with anyone, they’ll void your subscription contract. With MIT you can skip that scheme altogether and just make version closed source.

                  Like… Why else would they use MIT here? They could have just used GPL for the Rust coreutils.

          • auzy1@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            If they tried that, other distro’s can also fork it and add those exact features in for free…

      • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        123·
        2 days ago

        Coreutils are being dropped in favour of “move fast and break things” model with Rust and permissive licenses that allows for corporations to pull the rug from under the users (and developers) and put subscription barriers on everything.

        • auzy1@lemmy.worldEnglish
          63·
          2 days ago

          That has to be the absolute dumbest take ever.

          Nothing about this suggests they will put “subscription barriers” on anything.

          Stop scaremongering

          There’s lots of good reasons to use rust over C.

          Even if it was GPL, since they developed the tools, they can still dual licence. It just means any third party contributions added to the GPL code couldn’t be added back into the proprietary one. That’s what GPL helps protect against… It doesn’t stop the original developers releasing a commercial version at all.

          Not that there is any evidence they would… If they were trying to achieve that, you wouldn’t target coreutils (you’d target more profitable things, like a desktop environment, or drivers)

          • auzy1@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            23 hours ago

            Actually, just to add to this…

            Technically, it doesn’t even stop them adding contributor code to a proprietary implementation if that WAS the case (which it clearly isn’t). They’d just need need the contributor agreement to pass ownership of any contributions to Canonical (which is generally in a lot of the agreements anyway, to protect against developers trying to sue later).