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?

    • alphadont@lemmy.caEnglish
      42·
      9 days ago

      Okay, I’m not a fan of this either but let’s not get too worried about this. Everyone’s known Ubuntu is a joke for a long time and they don’t really have much influence on even several of their downstreams, let alone the rest of the ecosystem.

  • Arehandoro@lemmy.ml
    392·
    10 days ago

    The correct title should be “Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with MIT licenced uutils”.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      243·
      10 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).

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
    91·
    9 days ago

    My scepticism is that this should’ve been done within the coreutils project, or at least very closely affiliated. This isn’t an area of the linux technical stack that we should tolerate being made distro-specific, especially when the licensing is controlled by a single organisation that famously picks and chooses its interpretation of “FOSS” to suit its profit margins.

    On a purely technical level, GNU coreutils should very seriously consider moving to rust if only to counter alternatives before it’s too late. While these utilities work well in C (and usually stay secure thanks to the Unix philosophy limiting the project scope), FOSS projects are continuing to struggle with finding new contributors as younger devs are more likely to use modern systems languages like Go and Rust. Not to mention that any project using Rust as a marketing tool will appeal to anyone rightfully concerned about hardening their system.

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    8·
    9 days ago

    I’m mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that’s a good thing, but if it’s done because it’s MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.

    • suicidaleggroll@lemm.eeEnglish
      82·
      10 days ago

      Mint is basically Ubuntu with all of Canonical’s BS removed. This definitely counts as Canonical BS, so I’d be surprised if it made its way into Mint.

    • Fatur_New@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      9 days ago

      As I recall Ubuntu will allow to switch uutils to coreutils. So it looks like Linux Mint will continue to use coreutils

  • joel_feila@lemmy.world
    72·
    10 days ago

    So i hear that removing all the gnu stuff opens linux to be redistributed with a bew liesinse like mit. Which means its a little more closed iff a little more monitized.

    Not knowledge enough on my own to know for sure. If someone with more knowledge could explain.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      15·
      10 days ago

      This is one of the old-time original arguments in the OSS community.

      The crux of the matter is that the GNU licenses require that modifications be released back to the community. Other “more permissible” licenses like MIT do not.

      So if you want to make a commercial version of X, and X is under a GPL, then any changes you make need to be released under the GPL. The idea being “I shared this code with the community with the intent that you can use it for free and modify it as you like, but you need to share back what you do.” Also called “Share and share alike”.

      This defends against “embrace, extend, extinguish” tactics that companies like Microsoft has loved to do. They can’t take your code, modify it for their own purposes and re-sell it possibly making a more popular version that is now proprietary.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        7·
        9 days ago

        Somewhat ironic example.

        X (Xorg) has been MT licensed for 40 years. So is Wayland. So is Mesa.

        I think Xorg is a good example of the real world risks for something like core utils. If you did not know or care until now that X and Wayland were MIT licensed, you probably do not need to care too much about utils licensing either.

        • UnityDevice@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          9 days ago

          Here’s a better example: the use of GPL software (primarily Linux and busybox) by Linksys when they made their wrt54g router was used to compel them into releasing the source code of the firmware for that router. Subsequent GPL enforcement by the SFC made Cisco release full firmware sources for a whole series of Linksys routers. Thanks to those sources openwrt, ddwrt and several other open source router firmwares developed.

          I can now run three openwrt routers in my home purely thanks to the GPL. If those projects had been MIT licensed, Linksys and Cisco could have just politely told everyone to go suck a lemon because they would have had no obligation to release anything.

    • priapus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      41·
      10 days ago

      The Linux kernel still is and will always be GPL. It really doesnt matter if the coreutils aren’t.