Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Pop!_OS Lead: Linux Developers are “Patronizing Pedantic Megalomaniacs”" video.

@sunderkeenin I disagree regarding technical merit. There's technical merit to learning how to properly use C++ and the various *_ptr<> types along with when to use move and forward and r-value and l-value references and their semantics, especially if you already know C++ and/or C. Moving to a completely new language because it makes false promises and looks like Perl barf is just a massive waste of time.
11
@mmstick He's just patronizing them because he's scared of the cult. Few more years and the hype will die down and people will be onto the next big thing: Corrosion.
8
@anonymousalexander6005 No, delusional is thinking that a language can prevent all bugs.
7
@Spractral And it's already been proven that Rust can't prevent all bugs, nor can it even prevent that subset of bugs. But you just try to tell a Rustacean the truth and they'll call you delusional for daring to speak the truth.
7
@anonymousalexander6005 None of those bugs will be fixed by using Rust. Again, bad developers exist everywhere and use every language. Moving to a new one won't fix bad programmers, only better education can attempt to do that.
6
@mmstick Right, so no group should ever be described as a cult? How about the people at Jonestown? Or did you not mean to make such a false statement and maybe you'll realize that it's only an outside objective observer that can really tell you that you're in a cult? Because you are, and it's not just the cult of Rust.
6
@mmstick Says the cult member who chants the mantra that their language of choice will fix all bugs, despite that being technically impossible. But you go on and appeal to those emotions of the fear of bugs with your lies.
6
@mmstick You're interpreting his statement incorrectly. He's ribbing them because they claimed that updates would come faster if Rust was used and they were clearly lying. A few more years and he may remove it from the kernel because it's not only not living up to the hype but actively hurting kernel development.
5
@generic694 Maybe, but they're not necessarily improvements either. Every single one that's been recommended to me was inferior to what it was intended to replace with the only "enhancement" being that it prints messages with multiple pretty colors. The one that really irks me that people keep pushing is ripgrep, and it doesn't correctly handle PCRE as claimed.
4
@alomac8976 It's actually spelled tetanus, but yeah, it would definitely be a better name.
4
You must be on a worse computer than my potato. It only takes me around three or four hours to compile each new version. Of course, I delete the whole archive each time so I don't have to put up with the bloat hanging about, and it took me 10 minutes to write this comment while I was waiting on `du` to show me the current usage. For the source folder where I've got the `git` repo, it's "only" 19GB for the version I'm currently on, 1.77.0 compiled on 3-17, and the binaries take up 3.2GB. I don't remember what GCC uses up, but since it handles more than one language it's not so easy to quantify, but it still uses up less space than that and compiles significantly faster. I don't do incremental builds like some developers, so compile time matters more to me because things aren't generally cached.
4
@sillonbono3196 I was with you until you made the false claim that kernel developers are lone wolves. If they weren't good at collaborating, then the kernel wouldn't be what it is today. If they didn't abide by the rules, then Linus would've smacked them down, and he has done so quite a few times. The thing to remember is that the core of the kernel is basically from fewer than 100 devs. Those are the ones that really count, not the thousands who develop single purpose drivers for a weird piece of hardware they bought at a flea market 10 years ago.
3
@anonymousalexander6005 That's an absolutely shyte take. Bad developers exist in every sphere and use just about every language. What you're describing is a bad developer and has nothing to do with the language and most of the programmers working on the kernel are top-notch. The best reason to use 20+ year old code is because it will have gone through many debug cycles and have a lot of bugs ironed out. Not every library will have that treatment, but you shouldn't shy away from all old code bases because of the few that do it wrong. And as it just so happens, ABI compatibility gets broken far too often on Linux because most people have the attitude of just taking the source and compiling it again. I personally hate this attitude so much more than the opposite. Oddly, the most stable ABI on Linux is the Win32 API provided by WINE.
2
@cdoublejj Tell me where to sign up.
2
@muhdiversity7409 If you're suggesting it's because of some of his recent videos which used a title that made him sound like he was critical of Rust, then I agree. For any Rustaceans who truly believe Rene dislikes Rust, watch his videos and read his comments and stop trying to attack people.
2
@ruffianeo3418 First, a monolithic kernel is not a design flaw, it's a design choice. There are tradeoffs whichever way you take it, such as better integration and faster code with less memory usage that you can do with a monolithic design and can't do as well with a microkernel. Second, Linux hasn't been a purely monolithic kernel in so long I can't even remember when the switch occurred. You can load modules after the kernel is already running. You don't need to compile everything in, it's just a means of providing options generically. And there are plenty of user space drivers these days and if you use Linux on any kind of a regular basis you probably use some, probably without knowing it.
2
@gargamel3478 I assume they learned the wrong lesson from how `git` works. Of course, even if that's the case, the database is too large and there's undoubtedly far too much duplication of effort. They should be more discriminating with what goes into it and prune stuff as needed. Here they could learn something from `git` such as branching, but maybe with the branches not all being necessary locally to have a complete picture of the most recent view of the database.
2
@RohithkannaDuraiswamy How did previous developers deal with it then? Did they merely read the code or has the documentation been deleted? If the former, then again, I'll state that they're asking for another developer to take time out of their busy schedule to assist the Rustaceans in their task of taking everyone else's place. If they can't read C, then that's on the Rustaceans, not the kernel devs.
1
What abstractions would those be?
1
So you're claiming that C developers eschew Rust because they hate these features?
1
Ah okay, so it's really because you're part of the cult. Bend over backwards and obey or you're an impediment. Got it. If you want it rewritten in Rust, then go rewrite it. If that's not good enough for you, then too bad.
1
@ruffianeo3418 As long as they implement their own infrastructure to support their language of choice, sure, why not. The problem with some languages is that they expect help in interfacing. There are many driver writers out there who just use C and don't need more help than reading the documentation or code to figure out how to interface with the kernel.
1
@tomthegeek The only distros I would avoid are those that push political agendas. Not that anyone would ask, but if you're curious I use Slackware.
1
@collection6062 Is that a clean compile or cached? Clean, mine takes about 1.5 seconds. Cached, it takes about 0.1 seconds. Of course, that's how long the whole compiler and all of its source takes to generate the compiler binary. How long does your compiler take to build programs written in your language and can you run them afterwards?
1