Yeah this whole blog is sus. Author claims to have been around for 17 years, doesn't have a single project of note and makes naive claims. Github history has thousands of commits per year every single day to private repos, yet very little public code or record to offer credibility. Not clear where they work or what they work on. Makes inflammatory claims about hot-topic languages. Throws up ads on the blog. Personally posts blog to HN on a relatively new account, rather than it organically finding its way here. Sorry I'm not buying it.
He seems to know what he's doing, from the author's Twitter:
Post something slightly mentioning rust in r/cpp, Rust evangelists show up, post something slightly mentioning rust in r/zig, Rust evangelists show up. How is this not a cult?
> Author claims to have been around for 17 years, doesn't have a single project of note and makes naive claims.
Plenty of such people out there.
This guy appears to just personally dislike Rust for reasons undisclosed and tries to rationalize it via posts like this one.
It's like with this former coworker of my former coworker who was really argumentative, seemingly for the sake of it. I did some digging and found that his ex left him and is now happily married.
Turns out that when he was criticizing the use of if-else in Angular templates what he was really thinking about was "if someone else".
I think you're pretty clueless to make that claim, they bought something, not stole, and one out of the 3 core contributors (who is also the original creator or the project) agreed. You should form an opinion based on logic and facts, not who you follow.
The irony here is that the author doesn't know how to use containers, there's nothing specifically Docker there, yet seems to portay a level of Unix knowledge ...
The submitted title was (and at this writing remains) an editorialised commentary on the nature of the article, and doesn't concern the article itself.
HN certainly allows for rewriting misleading or clickbait titles, though I'd argue neither case applies here.
Sure, but I think the intent is that you can alter the title to make it no longer misleading.
In this case, the replacement title doesn't clarify anything or indicate what the article is about. It's just pure commentary (speculation even) about the quality of the article.
I don't think it's speculation though, since this rye-init init system clearly doesn't even exist anywhere (let alone as an Arch package), and building something that could replace SystemD is an absolutely herculean task.
Rye is a package manager for Python, written in Rust, by Astral, and there's even a rye init command that initializes a new project. That's likely what caused the hallucination.
The original poster is likely trying to get answers on how this kind of article is even a thing, and now so am I.
> The original poster is likely trying to get answers on how this kind of article is even a thing, and now so am I.
Then it would have been better as an "Ask HN", where the title would have been more useful (and didn't link to the article), and the poster would have written a little piece explaining the issue and linking to the article in the explanation.
The problem I have with the poster's title is that it is not reflecting what the link he provided is about. If his point was to raise a discussion about the article itself rather than the subject of the article, that's valid but should have been done in clearer way.
I can't seem to get my head around this. I've never heard of this so called init system, it's not in any repositories, and the article has strong hints of being entirely fabricated?
