Ah thank you. You likely guessed the reason for the question.

Many popular projects written in Rust, including the UUtils core utils rewrite, are MIT licensed as Rust is. There have been people that purposely confuse things by saying that “the Rust community” is undermining the GPL. I can see how that may lead somebody to believe that there is some kind of inherent licence problem with code written in Rust.

Code written in Rust can of course be licensed however you want from AGPL to fully proprietary.

I personally perceive a shift in license popularity towards more permissive licenses at least with the “younger generation”. The fact that so many Rust projects are permissively licensed is just a consequence of those kinds of licenses being more popular with the kinds of “modern” programmers that would choose Rust as a language to begin with. Those programmers would choose the same licenses even they used the GCC toolchain. But the “modern” languages they have to choose from are things like Rust, Swift, Zig, Go, or Gleam (all permissively licensed ). Python and TypeScript are also still trendy (also permissively licensed).

Looking at that list, it is pretty silly to focus on Rust’s license. Most of the popular programming languages released over the past 20 years are permissively licensed.

I have never heard the licensing of Rust being raised as a concern for the Linux kernel.

As Charles Babbage would say, “I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

The distro I use builds the entire Linux kernel with Clang which uses the same license as Rust. Linux is bound by the same modified GPL license regardless of what compiler I use to build it.

The compiler has no impact on the license applied to the code you build with that compiler. You can use closed source tools to build open source software and vice versa.

And, of course, the Rust license is totally open source as it is offered as both MIT and Apache. Apache 2.0 even provides patent guarantees which can matter for something like a compiler.

If you prefer to use GPL tools yourself, you may want to keep an eye on gccrs.

https://rust-gcc.github.io/

A legitimate concern about Rust may be that LLVM (Rust) supports a different list of hardware than GCC does. The gccrs project addresses that.

I used to think the problems with Manjaro stemmed from Arch. The I tied EndeavourOS and I thought that EOS was fixing the Arch problems.

Then I tried Arch and realized that all the problems are the result of Manjaro. Arch does not have them. None of the other derivatives have them either.

Manjaro is a Trojan Horse.

It has gotten better in Wayland. I am looking forward to the near future when we can finally stop appending “on Wayland” to everything.

You should use what you like.

COSMIC may offer a middle ground if you did want to try something else though.

And KDE is very configurable. It does not have to look like Windows.

The GNU projects that people actually use are primarily hosted, maintained, and developed by Red Hat (IBM). They are the primary code contributors. Not just GPL, GNU specifically.

This is just a fact.

https://sourceware.org/ (Previously known as sources.redhat.com)

There is more permissively licensed code in most Linux distributions than there is GPL code. Not only is that permissive code not being “stolen” by “mega corps” but the majority of it is corporately funded.

Again, just facts. All pretty easy to verify if facts matter at all to you.

What part did not make sense? Just that the facts do not agree with your opinion?

The comment I responded to was stating things that sounded like facts that are not at all supported by the evidence. And if I ask for some, I am pretty sure the cherry-picked examples will be mostly companies “stealing” projects that they wrote to begin with.

The thesis that permissive licenses result in less Open Source code is wrong. In fact, they lead to greater corporate participation and employees write more code than unsponsored individuals. That is what the evidence shows.

Use whatever licenses you want. Not wanting companies to use code you wrote is a totally valid choice. But you should not have to misrepresent reality to convince other people to do the same.

You are in luck. COSMIC launches in 3 days.

I am also interested to see what kind of adoption COSMIC gets. From the comments I have seen, I looks like it may pull-away a fair number of GNOME users.

Nor sure that COSMIC calendar will have all the features you want. COSMIC is a pretty good base for GNOME apps though. It does not have to be either / or.

If you ever want to try Wayland, check out LabWC.

I am also loving Niri

Sort of.

Everything is Wayland compatible but there is no XFWM for Wayland. So, you use a Wayland compositor like LabWC with the rest of XFCE running on top of it. This is the default XFCE config on SUSE Leap for example.

XFCE is not quite as far along on portal support as GNOME or KDE though. Depending on your use case, you may still prefer running on Xorg.

You can run the XFCE apps on any Wayland desktop.

Hundreds of billions of years should be sufficient t

Having the original UNIX source code with fully preserved timestamps?

I think they mean use solar to keep the price of the electricity consumption down. It is probably a joke since old gear is going to drink a lot of juice cryptomining.

KHtml was massacred

KHTML was forked. And kept open source. And the fork was so successful that even KDE switched to it (voluntarily).

And Apple employed a bunch of the KHTML developers for years. They still do I assume.

Oh, and one of them is now creating what will probably be the most successful independent web browser project ever—Ladybird.

Solid example.

Android and Chromium. Is listing two projects that were created almost entirely by the same company and gifted to the Open Source world the best way to make your point? I mean, they sure are shafting us with Kubernetes too right?

I would say that Google is screwing us with Clang and LLVM except Apple and Microsoft contribute a lot to that too so they deserve some of the blame.

But, I mean clearly GCC is the better project. I mean sure LLVM resulted in Rust (corporate project), Swift (corporate project), and Zig but GCC is where the real innovation is. I mean GCC just added COBOL and Algol 68.

GPL code is code for the community by the community.

Lets list some GPL code developed on servers owned and operated by IBM (because they are the core developers):

• Glibc
• GCC
• binutuls
• GNU CoreUtils
• systemd
• pipewire
• Podman
• Flatpak
• elfutils

Do you use any of those? About half of those projects were started by IBM. It was them that chose the GPL as a license. I wonder who forced them?

Who are the Top Contributors to the Linux kernel?

• Intel
• Google
• Red Hat
• Oracle

Ya, let’s keep those mega corps from using all that GPL code that YOU write.

FreeBSD just released a new version. It is entirely permissively licensed. It is clearly an anomaly that half the new features in this release have the names of companies that contributed them in the release notes. Who are these Netflix people?

I would say “how about gaming” but very little of that code is GPL. Any permissively licensed code used in gaming?

• WINE
• proton
• Xorg
• Wayland
• Mesa
• FEX
• LLVM

To your point, those projects must have been totally stolen by greedy mega corps right? I mean, X has been around for decades so there has been lots of time to push Xorg out of the market.

These Valve guys are big in gaming. Surely they must be stealing all our code and not giving back right? I mean, only the license would stop them (as you say). Obviously they took that MIT WINE thing and made Proton proprietary.

Right?

Turn them into a Kebernetes or a Proxmox cluster.

Most “stable” distros offer kernel version that update more frequently to accommodate new hardware.

Most “rolling” distros offer LTS kernels that remain essentially unchanged for long periods.

The kernel is one of the smallest differences between the two models.

Agreed. That is why I think Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) is a better desktop than Debian Stable. The DE and everyday GUI tools stay fresh even if most of the distro is a time capsule.