Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ls-a's commentslogin

I think companies hired too many Rust engineers, and now those engineers are writing technical blogs and making product decisions. We're seeing a lot of those everyday on HN first page

Sounds like my ex

So the tsunamis of 2004 and 2011 could've caused covid?

Didn't a butterfly cause those tsunamis? :)

Not any old butterfly. Mothra.

Use linux because it now has Rust kernels. Great marketing

I never used linux because it was built using C++. Never have I cared what language the product was built it. The Rust community however wants you to use a product just because it's implemented in Rust, or atleast as one of the selling points. For that reason I decided to avoid any product that advertises using Rust as a selling point, as much as I can. Was planning to switch from Mac to a Linux machine, not anymore, I'm happily upgrading my mac.

It's an optional tool that can be used to implement drivers now, not forced. If you don't like the idea of another language being supported for implementing a subset of kernel modules, I don't think you wouldn't enjoyed having a Linux machine anyways.

That's not the case. It's using Rust as a selling point. All the noise around using Rust is marketing. The fact that you think linux machines are enjoyed by only a specific group of people makes me happier with my choice

> That's not the case. It's using Rust as a selling point

"Rust as a selling point" was a big thing in 2018-2022ish. You see it a lot less of the "written in Rust" in HN headlines these days. Some people were very excited about Rust early on. What feels more common today are people who unnecessarily hate Rust because they saw too much of this hype and they (justifiably) got annoyed by it.

If there is a new, optional language to be added to Linux Kernel development, Rust makes sense. It's a low level, performant, and safe language. Introducing it for driver development has almost no impact on 99% of users, except maybe it'll safe them a memory related bug fix patch having to be installed at some point. Is Rust the "selling point" here, or is the potential to avoid an entire class of bugs the selling point?

> The fact that you think linux machines are enjoyed by only a specific group of people makes me happier with my choice

If by "specific group of people" you mean "people who will refuse to use an OS based on the implementation language(s)", then I guess so.

I don't mean to be rude (although it reads like it, apologies), but I just think that you're coming at this from a perspective of malice instead of what the goal was, which was to reduce bugs in kernel drivers, and not to pimp Rust as a programming language by getting it into a large software project.


No worries I didn't take offenses. I just disagree. The title should've been we reduced bugs in the kernel and here is some proof of that. The 2018-2022-ish hype (I call it bullying campaign) is still strong. Google recently did a blog post about Rust speeding up their development, in the age of LLMs, seriously! I can't stop lol'ing at that

> It's using Rust as a selling point.

That's just not true. Neither Linus Torvalds, nor the Linux Foundation, nor any major distro, nor anyone else who could conceivably be considered responsible for "marketing" Linux is saying you should use it because a small part of it is written in Rust.

I just went to ubuntu.com and the word "rust" does not appear anywhere on the front page. So what are you talking about?


> Stay tuned for details in our Maintainers Summit coverage.

I can argue otherwise. Developer advocacy is a form of marketing (specially for a product traditionally targeted towards tech savvy people)


Linux is written in C, my friend.

C, C++, I don't think you got the gist of what I said

From Pebble watch to inspector gadget

Isn't that a spying device

Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here

No, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.

> Saying party X plans to do something

but that's not the whole thing being said.

Party X may have been planning on something, but party Y threw a wrench in the middle, causing party X to have to make some response. By implication, party X believes party Y to be throwing a wrench, hence, party X must act. Therefore, party Y also must be planning something that counteracts party X's desires. If it weren't so, party X would not act (as that costs money).


The thing that contradicts Party X's desires can just be not doing the thing Party X wants done, it doesn't have to be doing an equal and opposite thing.

This seems like a variation on the fallacy of the excluded middle.


It's closer to so-far-unnamed fallacy of "the right has no agency." Everything they do is in response to something done by the democrats or the left or whatever and so they aren't responsible for their actions.

Netflix wasn't buying CNN.

Both-sidesism is a hell of a drug.

Netflix and those involved hasn't conclusively metamorphosed into a Larry Ellison-esque state of Lawn Moweriness.

Make no mistake, it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp; on the humanity scale, it scores quite low, but not lawn mower low. They're still outside the Ellison event horizon.


> it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp

What does that mean?


It means do not make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison.

Didn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it.

Well Netflix hasn’t given Trump a $15 million bribe or any other politician yet.

his son-in-law is outbidding netflix so $15bn maybe would do it :)

You successfully built one more thing to worry about while away

My tell-tale sign that AI is moving the needle is the disappearance of the concept of leetcode. If you've done an interview lately you would know AI hasn't moved any needles yet

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: