ISO

A long time ago, there was this misconception that "linux" was terminal-only. You know, like the interface sysadmins and Hollywood hackers use.

A small long-defunct non-tech forum I used to be a member of had a tech sub-forum, and in that sub-forum there was a new post one day introducing "linux" and covering some basics. It was full of DE screenshots (GNOME 2 and KDE 3) specifically to dispel the "terminal-only" misconception.

That was almost ~20 years ago. And the rest is history. I never liked Windows or M$ anyway for both technical and non-technical reasons. So it wasn't that hard to convince me.

I almost exclusively use the terminal for everything except web browsing now, and don't use a DE. So you could say that I myself ironically became a perpetuator of the misconception 😉

Or to avoid ad hominem accusations:
No code. Don't Care.

And no benchmarks either. That intro about stack vs. heap also reads like someone who never went further than sophomore-level knowledge, or someone explaining things to kids.

You're confusing the Taliban with the "moderate patriots"* NATO tried to prop up for two decades, except those "moderates" didn't stop at looking at pictures.

* That's always a code for lowlife mercenaries if you haven't caught on yet.

Oh look! An attempt at supporting an unhinged manic take with some condescension. A staple of fediverse discourse.

Do tell about the ~~golden~~ platinum era of Apache/CGI + Perl/PHP + MySQL + Flash (+ Java applets for the 15 minutes where they were a thing), because I totally wasn't there.

incompetent
Dipshit
deranged

I would give you some advice, but it would probably be in vain.

"Every accusation is ..." comes to mind.

If people wanted to run an app over the internet, they should’ve just run a fucking app written in something that’s actually appropriate for that purpose

Between all the weirdly charged language, this part was especially worthy of a laugh, since this line of argumentation has full symmetry with the one used by mobile carriers that refused to accept the smart phone (iPhone 1 era).

"If you want a camera, buy a camera. Why do you want it on your phone?!"

Maybe you should write a very "insightful" comment about the incompetent deranged Dipshits at Apple and AT&T too.

resvg/usvg is a good implementation if you're looking for one.

As a Rust dev who has to target Windows, more support for Rust from MS is very relevant and important to me.

"Target Windows" presumably doesn't involve writing drivers. How would WDK FFI wrappers help you exactly in that context, and what non-trivial support is MS actually providing?

Maybe you mistook this community for !opensource@programming.dev?

No, I didn't. Any language community can easily become a corpo spam one if you don't put some rules in place to filter direct and indirect ads.

Let's analyze this "news" story as an example:

• Microsoft published trivial unsafe NDK FFI wrappers and tooling awhile ago (not new, not impressive, not news).
• Microsoft publishes an ad in their blog mentioning the published wrappers, and using a lot of marketing talk, with a random trivial LookasideList sample wrapper sandwiched in between. The real LookasideList implementation is of course neither available, nor is it implemented in Rust (If it was, you would be going through two layers of FFI to connect Rust to Rust, which would be even more stupid). Below that random sample code is this note:

Though we believe this wrapper to be sound for the purposes of the team that developed it, it requires further review and testing before we can publish it as the “official” wrapper for these APIs. Thus the above should be considered a possible look at what Rust abstractions for our kernel mode might look like, and not final code.

In the long term, as we make design decisions and finalize our wrappers, our intent is to publish these wrapper crates on crates.io as first-class members of the Rust ecosystem.

• Then independent "news" sites pick up on these low-in-technical-substance ads, and consume the well crafted marketing section titles like "The next steps: going from unsafe Rust to safe Rust". So we end up with the title here "Microsoft is turning Rust into a first-class language for developing secure Windows drivers". When in reality, almost literally nothing happened (yet). And even the premise and promise is all about making safer bindings to (presumably) non-Rust code we will never see.

For me, corpo ads with no "relevant" code is boring (or in this case, no new code at all, unless you count the sample list binding). And I can’t imagine I’m alone here.

For me, posting every single pull request from the Asterinas repo would be infinitely more interesting, and infinitely more relevant.

Adding rust FFI bindings to a part of a closed-source system doesn't magically make anything "secure".

And ads shouldn't be allowed here, unless real fully functional code (not just bindings) is made available. Such ads should go to !technology@programming.dev or wherever.

urged lawmakers to act.

"We urge uniparty members to investigate themselves and find some wrongdoing."

People stopped taking Brian seriously when he helped create Go. That was pre-Rust.

Even the "talking points" here seem to be re-used from "Go vs. X" ones. Also, his experience speaks of someone who only tried Rust pre-v1.0.

Anyone who actually knows Rust, anti- or pro-, knows that what he said (partially in jest) is factually wrong.

Feel free to prove otherwise, especially the part about the performance of Rust programs. Don't be surprised if he simply didn't pass --release to cargo build, a common pitfall for someone in the "hello world" stage of trying Rust.

And this is why appeal to authority was never more fallacious, considering we live in a world where Dunning-Kruger is a universal reality.

man 7 hier is much older than linux itself. The 1994 start date in the article is not doing the history of the tradition justice.

It would have been weirder if the creepy "init system" (with its 58 executables and counting, 52 + 6 arg0 links) dictating the future of that tradition didn't raise some eye brows.