Attention Required! | Cloudflare
www.cyberciti.biz

At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.

What are your thoughts abouth this?

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    313·
    2 days ago

    See other comments: all these rewrites are not using the GPL but rather permissive licenses like MIT. Bye-bye FOSS (in those ecosystems).

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
      151·
      2 days ago

      I don’t like them moving away from gpl but there were already plenty of non-gpl coreutils clones, so, i’m not sure how much it really matters as long as the linux kernel is still gpl.

      • ferric_carcinization@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        Unlike the other alternative coreutils, uutils focuses on GNU compatibility. If you depend on GNUisms, uutils allow you to unGNU & unGPLv3+ your system.

        • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
          5·
          2 days ago

          I don’t understand, you’d still have to completely replace the linux kernel for a situation where this matters to occur, no?

          and the linux kernel is where 99% of the work is, correct?

          • ferric_carcinization@lemmy.mlEnglish
            8·
            2 days ago

            The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, not v3. The third version of the license forbids tivoization (vendoring unmodifiable copyleft software). Also, the GNU coreutils aren’t limited to Linux.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
              3·
              2 days ago

              I know they aren’t limited to linux, but can you give me an example of a situation where this matters?

              All of the situations I can think of are remedied by the fact that linux is still GPL’d

              • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
                21·
                1 day ago

                I will give you one. You want to embed the coreutils in some other projects ie. a browser. But at that point it’s cheaper for you to submit your modification upstream because you are making money selling the browser not by selling modified coreutils. Maintaining your own fork is not worth it once you make meaningful changes.

                I think this is the reason why uutils are being funded by Big Tech and why they chose this license. (to get funded) correction: I only found that they are funded by the Sovereign Tech Fund and apparently the author is open to changing the license, they don’t care (see video/presentation).

                But yes, I agree this whole comment section is deranged. The reason why Ubuntu chose uutils is because of Rust’s safety and because of speed. In some workloads (I think it’s sorting) they totally smash the GNU counterparts.

                For Ubuntu it does not make any sense to make a proprietary fork. You don’t choose your OS based on its coreutils. If they added a new convenience flag for their proprietary grep, it would just make them look bad. Also skilled users would hate it because now their scripts would not be portable. Or if it were really that big of a gamechanger, the feature would get added to the other coreutils and Ubuntu would end up with nothing but bad reputation. Unless they made change to the underlying code for performance. Then it would be harder to implement in the other coreutils but as I said before, nobody would care. Faster and safer coreutils are a nice to have, not something people base their OS choice on.

                Edit: added source to author’s stance on license

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        115·
        2 days ago

        as long as the linux kernel is still gpl.

        I seem to recall some drama about rust in the kernel… what could that mean…