Comment by tharne
10 months ago
> Ted Tso'o accusing the speaker of wanting to convert people to the "religion promulgated by Rust"
Given the online temper tantrum thrown by marcan, Ted Tso'o's comment seems totally reasonable, regardless of one's opinion of Rust in the Linux kernel.
Ted gave that rant 6 months ago, and it was in fact unreasonable if you look at the details of what they were discussing.
You're trying to use Marcan's ragequit to ex-post-facto justify Ted T'so when it's literally the other way around.
> tharne 4 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Resigning as Asahi Linux project lead
>> > Ted Tso'o accusing the speaker of wanting to convert people to the "religion promulgated by Rust"
> That seems totally reasonable. Putting aside the technical merits of the Rust language for the moment, the Rust community suffers from many of the same issues currently hobbling the Democratic Party in the United States. Namely, it often acts like a fundamentalist religion where anyone who dares dissent or question something is immediately accused of one or another moral failings. People are sick of this nonsense and are willing to say something about it.
It's really interesting that every time I open a thread like this, countless people come out swinging with this claim that Rust is totally this religion and cult, while the rest of the thread will be full of C evangelism and vague rhetorics about how nothing like this ever works, while actively contributing to making sure it won't this time either.
99% of insufferable Rust vs. C interactions I've come across it was the C fella being the asshole. So sorry, but no, not very convincing or "totally reasonable" at all.
> 99% of insufferable Rust vs. C interactions I've come across it was the C fella being the asshole. So sorry, but no, not very convincing or "totally reasonable" at all.
This has also been my observation as a C++ developer who finds themselves in a fair few C/C++-aligned spaces. There are exceptions, but in most of those spaces the amount of Rust Derangement Syndrome I've witnessed is honestly kind of tiresome at this point.
> Rust Derangement Syndrome
Thank you for proving me so right so readily.
2 replies →
Quite frankly, if I had the realization that despite assurances to the contrary, that my contributions to a project had been sabotaged for months or even years up to that point, I would have also had a hard time keeping a smile on my face.
This is ultimately what this drama comes down to. Not if Rust should or shouldn't be in the kernel, but with kernel maintainers' broken promises and being coy with intentions until there is no other option than to be honest, with the reveal that whatever time and effort a contributor had put in was a waste from the start.
It seems like the folks who didn't want Rust in the kernel will be getting their way in the end, but I had better never hear another complaint about the kernel not being able to attract new talent.
I can't believe you're the first person I find in this conversation who raises this issue. This is the exact reason why Marcan flipped his lid. Linus publicly championed a very technically complex initiative and then left all those contributors to the wolves when things didn't progress without a hiccup. Especially damning when you consider that at every step, the fief lords in Linux have seemingly done everything in their power to set up the r4l people for failure and Linus hasn't so much as squeaked at them. He personally cut the knot and asserted that Rust is Linux's future, but he constantly allows those below him to relitigate the issue with new contributors (who can't fight back because even though they're contributing by the supposed rules, they don't have enough social buy-in).
> He personally cut the knot and asserted that Rust is Linux's future,
When did he say that?
In any event, that could be true (Rust is Linux's future) while the statement "R4L is not in Linux's future" is also true.
IOW, in principle, I may agree with you on something. That doesn't mean I agree with your specific implementation.
> my contributions to a project had been sabotaged
I really wish people would stop throwing around the word "sabotaged". No one "sabotaged" anything. The opposition has been public from the beginning.
If I'm opposed to something, and someone asks my opinion about it in a private conversation, it is not "sabotage" to express my opinion. So far I haven't seen any evidence that those opposed to a mixed-language code base organized behind the scenes to hamper progress in anyway. Instead, their opposition has been public and in most cases instant.
Are people not allowed to be opposed to things anymore?