Rust-Based Redox OS Devs Slam Linux, Unix, GPL

Freshly Exhumed writes: Redox OS, a project on GitHub aimed at creating an alternative OS able to run almost all Linux executables with only minimal modifications, is to feature a pure Rust ecosystem, which they hope will improve correctness and security over other OSes. In their own words, 'Redox isn't afraid of dropping the bad parts of POSIX, while preserving modest Linux API compatibility.' They also level harsh criticisms at other OSes, saying "...we will not replicate the mistakes made by others. This is probably the most important tenet of Redox. In the past, bad design choices were made by Linux, Unix, BSD, HURD, and so on. We all make mistakes, that's no secret, but there is no reason to repeat others' mistakes." Not stopping there, Redox documentation contains blunt critiques of Plan 9, the GPL, and other mainstays.

Comments

Code first, talk after

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the code first, then start shittalking everybody.

Re:Code first, talk after

[gweihir]

Show me the code first, then start shittalking everybody.

That is not the Rust Way. The Rust Way means that you feel vastly superior to everybody else and let them know, no actual facts required. This must be the most arrogant and at the same time one of the most clueless tech-communities ever.

So what?

[Desler]

Who cares? It's a toy OS written in a toy language. It'll join the thousands of other pet project OSes that no more than a handful of people will ever use.

Re:So what?

[Desler]

These people fail to realize that 99% of users care about applications not the OS nor the purity level of its code or APIs. A handful of Rust hipsters will jump ship and the rest of the world will go "What's RedoxOS and why should I care?"

Purity is easy

[The-Ixian]

When you are just starting out or if the project is relatively small.

The more adoption you gain, the more the purity is corrupted.

Enjoy the view from your high horse while it lasts I guess.

Both funny and impressive

[Bruce Perens]

It's impressive that they are out to make both their own kernel and their own runtime. At first glance it looks like a monolithic kernel, someone should page Andy Tannenbaum to harass them, and if it's really monolithic that takes a point from the "not making other people's mistakes" column.

It takes a lot of computer science smarts to even understand what the mistakes in other operating systems were and how to avoid them. And as others have commented, it's easy to point at other's mistakes when your project is in its infancy, much harder when your project is grown up.

I'll really be impressed if they don't map graphics cards into user space. Nothing's ever stable once you do that. That's the biggest mistake in the whole industry. But I bet they don't take fixing that one on.

Talking easy. Doing hard.

[Qbertino]

Old Kung Fu proverb.

GPL was a good choice for Linux

[caseih]

The GPL may not be appropriate for many projects, and Redux' choice not to use it is understandable (they chose MIT), but for Linux, being a very large, multi-corporation affair, the GPL is not only appropriate, it's made Linux what it is today. The so-called viral nature of the GPL is what protects it from corporate interest, keeps it open, and keeps the playing field level for the various contributors and interested companies while being steadily improved by all interested parties.

It's true that the modified GPLv2 that the Linux kernel uses has loopholes in it, and has been taken advantage of by some (Tivo!), but overall it's been a good choice.

Had Linux been BSD, or MIT, I just don't think it would be as big or successful as it has been, and so widely contributed to by many competing companies. The BSD and MIT licenses lend themselves to widespread adoption and use without fear of any copyright repercussion. However nothing in them prevents companies from taking the code they want for their own proprietary purposes, never to release it back to the community for mutual benefit.

I am not saying Redux should not be MIT -licensed. I'm just saying their criticism of Linux using the GPL is debatable.

Oh please.....

[mlwmohawk]

Unics, Unix, UNIX, unix, posix, bsd, linux, minix, plan9, etc. They all come from the same basic design philosophy, and it is a very good starting point, simple, clean, wonderful.

Then you want applications to run on it. Then you get performance issues. Then you get security issues. Then you get new types of peripherals. Then you get new types of processors and memory architectures. Then it shrinks to be a raspberry PI, then it grows to be massively parallel and fill a room.

After all that, tell me again about what mistakes you are not going to make.

Mistakes

[wonkey_monkey]

we will not replicate the mistakes made by others

Nope, you'll just brand new mistakes of your own!

Why not use the GPL?

[duckintheface]

The "freedom" of the MIT license is the freedom to deny others access to source code. ReDox claims that they aren't worried about someone adding proprietary code because it would, by definition, have to be an improvement in order to be successful. Yes, except Windows is successful without being an improvement on Linux. How did that happen? It happens because people become dependent on a particular feature, a particular standard Over time that may become inferior but because it's now proprietary, it can't be improved without violating copyright.

So why not use GPL? ReDox never really answers that obvious question. If the ReDox folks have a great idea, just implement it in the GPL and then everyone can enjoy that great idea. But what they really want is for many people to donate their code so they can then make a profit off it. And that's why the GPL wins over time.

Also, note that the attack on the GPL specifically focuses on libraries. But in general Linux libraries are covered under the LGPL and not the GPL. So ReDox is setting up a straw man argument. If libraries are a problem, then compare your license to the LGPL.