Fuck dude, we need an alternative to the Linux Foundation that actually focuses on Linux itself, not every single project that somehow runs on Linux. The linux kernel is a pain to join as a newbie, it’s underfunded (2% of all the Linux Foundation’s funding goes to the Linux kernel), the development cycle and tooling is outdated, the major language © is a security risk, the maintainers are turning old and gray which brings with it the typical resistance against change, and so many other things.
I don’t know if a fork is needed with a new org surrounding it that focuses 100% on the kernel, or if something else has to happen, but the Linux foundation wasting money on shit like AI and endorsing Chromium sounds an awful lot like Mozilla. Mozilla lost its way a long time ago and the Linux Foundation might be going the same way too.
The Linux kernel is just fine. C is in fact not a “security risk” and the tooling works fine for what it is.
I agree the Linux kernel is just fine. But that’s only because despite the security risks of C, there’s no viable alternative kernel.
But development doesn’t stand still, so either Linux catches up, or gets replaced when a viable alternative arrives. Thankfully Linus sees the problem, so they’re working to make the kernel viable a while longer, but I also agree with the person you replied to that this work could definitely use a bit more help.
There are no security risks with C when you write good code. The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.
I’m not saying Rust is bad. (It is generally good) The thing to remember is that Rust also can have security issues. What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.
Sorry, but this mindset is hurting both Linux and security in general.
The reason we are seeing a lot of security vulnerabilities is because prior to about 10 years ago security wasn’t considered that important.
This is frankly quite obviously false. Microsoft started taking security more seriously around the release of Windows 2000. Are you saying the Linux kernel developers took another 15 years to realize security is important?
Security research shows that new code is more prone to common vulnerabilities than old code is. While old code may have been designed with weak (or no) security considerations, those are well-mitigated by now. On the contrary, new code still regularly contains exploitable memory safety issues that slip by review.
What we need is skilled programmers who understand security.
We have skilled programmers who understand security. Those also understand that we need more than that.
Continuing to use C doesn’t merely require skilled programmers, it requires programmers that never make any mistake ever. That’s an infeasible standard for any human to uphold, hence why C is considered a risk.
I really dont support people hating on opensource devs/organisations but i think they deserve some hate for this.
Soon, Linux Foundation would be the joke that FSF is, but with capitalist twist.
please don’t insult the FSF like that by comparing it to the LF…
The FSF might be unpragmatic and (thus) often horribly out of date, but it’s neither opportunistic nor engaged in corporate bootlickery.
At some times it can even be dogmatic, but you can at least mostly depend on it keepig it’s spine and vision!
(even if I partially disagree with it, as it’s doctrine does not take political economy — and thus the root problem that is capitalism — into account)They might have pure motives but I have to wonder just how useful that is realistically. The rest of the world does not seem keen on following in their spirit.
chromium is not and never has been open source
Isn’t that objectively a false statement?
no; it’s not open source; it’s closed source by google given window dressing to appear open source.
I don’t think you understand what “open source” means then?
To put it simply: a programme using a license that guarantees certain freedoms.
Chromium uses such a license: the 3-Clause BSD license
Can you explain further? I’ve never looked into this before, but I can seemingly find chromium’s source code on github, and on Google’s chromium site
One could argue that the BSD licence the chromium code is under has disadvantages in comparison to GPL, but saying outright “not open source” is just utter nonsense.
The queen of England isn’t dead and Elvis just went home.
