LGTM!

That still exists BTW. It’s called Lomiri now.

I’m referring to nondeterminism for the same prompt, since unless you start a session from scratch, it’s unlikely you’ll have the same history. If you give it a prompt, then depending on what you’ve told it previously, it may blow up in your face.

Tbh them being nondeterministic is a big part of why they’re so unreliable. Like, maybe it’ll work fine for 9/10 people, but then there will be that one person whose home directory gets wiped for whatever reason. Or maybe it’ll do math right for those nine people, but then for that one person it’ll say 1 + 1 = 11.

You’re basically gambling if you don’t verify the answers.

What exactly do you mean by “permissions” here? It sounds like you’re just talking about basic Unix-style permissions. Also, what do you mean by “only the one based on BSD?”

Unless you’re talking about Mac OS 9 and earlier (like more than 20 years old), all their OSes have permissions and are based on BSD at this point.

Standard Unix permissions also aren’t gonna save you when you run an exploitable program as your home user and it can then access everything in your home directory (in other words, pretty much all of your important files for most users).

Tbh it’s linked to a ton of things (lots of cancers), so it’d be a pretty big deal in general if they’re able to scale it into something widely usable.

If you weren’t implying that people from those areas aren’t allowed to provide opinions because presumably in this context they’d be slanted against China, then your post had absolutely no relevance. So, why did you bother posting it?

This is kind of proving his point tbh.

I think this is true for all games that access the internet. However, it seems an especially large number of Chinese games that make it to the West require an internet connection to function. Sometimes it makes sense (multiplayer mechanics, gacha, etc.), sometimes it doesn’t at all (some relatively popular single-player RPGs with no online play require a connection just to make a save file, for example).

This is just to say I understand people being concerned if all they see are these Chinese online-required games everywhere when they can also find some random completely offline game made in America, Europe, Japan, etc. just as easily (or even a game with an optional online mode that can be disabled without the game breaking).

Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?

Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?

Given that you replied quite positively to the dude who wrote about the maintainers being “cucks” and keep talking about the “perverse incentives of rust,” the answer is no.

I’m going to block you now, byebye.

The requirements are not at all strict. Submit even one bug report or issue, or do literally anything positive rather than show up for the first time and whine about the management of the project or whatever out of nowhere and then maybe people will take your opinion more seriously.

The threads are indeed filled with people like you given that in a number of your posts you went and complained about Rust as a whole. This is ignoring that the other highly upvoted (license-related) top-level post in this very thread (before it got deleted by mods) called the project maintainers cucks and so on.

Anyway, now I’m actually done.

You don’t need to be a programmer to contribute. That’s just your bias. Anyway, I’m done with this.

If they’ve been living in Canada 30 years, these are overall probably not the sort of people who are gonna use this (unless the political climate in the US changes significantly I guess). Most of the right wingers I know have a very “America is better than Canada, why would I want to be Canadian?” sort of view.

In a recent analysis, Adam Harvey found that among the 999 most popular crates on crates.io, around 17% contained code that do not match their code repository.

17%!

Let me rephrase this, 17% of the most popular Rust packages contain code that virtually nobody knows what it does (I can’t imagine about the long tail which receives less attention).

Given that he lied about the results of the analysis he is using to prove his point, I find it hard to trust anything in this article.

In the analysis, Harvey said only 8 repositories did not match their upstream repos. The other problems were issues like not including the VCS info, squashing history, etc.

EDIT: Also, I just noticed that he called it a “recent” analysis. It’s roughly a two year old analysis. I expect things have improved a bit since then, especially since part of the problem was packaging using older versions of Cargo.

I’m actually looking into this right now. Other than tracking down all the birth certificates and stuff, it seems pretty straightforward.

The bill is C-3, since the article didn’t seem to mention it.

Lol I guess everyone who uses Linux and has contributed absolutely nothing to the kernel should be taken quite seriously when they drive-by on the kernel mailing list and start complaining about the management of the project.

And that’s only 30% lol

The “completely random person with no relevance to the project” specifically in reference to uutils-coreutils, but I will stand on the assessment for every other rust/mit rewrite of a c/gpl package, is in every instance a contributor, maintainer or user of the gpl package it’s based on and therefore neither random or irrelevant.

There are constantly random people complaining who literally have never been involved with GNU coreutils (or frankly any GNU project at all) or uutils. If all the people complaining worked on GNU projects, they’d have a truly astounding supply of contributors.

They are always people saying “hey, we wanna help but your license is standing in the way, why not change it so we can more easily work together?” Or “this project is great but the license is too permissive, since the thing it’s based on got by great with gpl, couldn’t the license be changed to gpl?”

People say this in the other direction as well.

Forking over license would be counterproductive and silly when the thing in question is a reimplementation of a gpl package. Literally just use the license that the original work had!

From my perspective the people asking rust/MIT rewrites of gpl/c stuff to go back to gpl are being perfectly reasonable and have every possible definition of standing to make that request and always get treated as interlopers.

I suppose you complain about this when the BSD folks reimplement functionality present in Linux or other GPL projects. To put it bluntly, uutils isn’t GNU coreutils. It’s an implementation of the utilities trying to get as close as possible to the same functionality, but it will likely never truly “replace” GNU coreutils (as long as the latter is still being developed, at least).

We havent even touched on the violation of the gpl aspect, where no programmer and certainly not one using a llm could be reasonably thought to be ignorant of the gpl coreutils inner workings and doing a clean room implementation which is what is legally required to not be considered a derivative work!

This is completely ridiculous. How does “no programmer … could be reasonably thought to be ignorant of the gpl coreutils inner workings” even make sense to you? Under this thought process, it’s impossible to make a clean room implementation at all because you cannot be “ignorant of the [XYZ project] inner workings” if you implement the same functionality. I suppose all the BSDs are in violation of the GPL since they have implemented roughly the same functionality. Not to mention Toybox.

Do you make your learning projects that you don’t really care about GPL? I don’t.

The reason people don’t want to GPL stuff like this is it’s bothersome to change it and get support from the existing contributors who are actually, you know, contributing to the project. The “get your politics out of my code” thing (for the license) is at this point because some completely random person who has no relevance to the project coming by, screaming about the GPL, and subsequently spawning a massive MIT vs. GPL debate/mudslinging contest is incredibly annoying. I’d frankly be tempted to keep it non-GPL just to spite anyone who does that. It’s a different thing if people who are actually relevant to the project consider doing it.

EDIT: I noticed this is a different subthread than I was thinking it was, so for context the project was started as a single person’s way to learn Rust using relatively easy to implement programs (with easy to access docs). Also, elsewhere someone mentioned forking. In that vein, I largely think this entire discussion is completely unserious because there has been a over a decade for someone to fork it in one of the drive-by license complaints, or even through complaints like here, yet no one has done anything.

A significant number are slight differences from GNU behavior that likely wouldn’t impact users or just random miscellaneous project tasks like “this is inefficient” or “clean up this thing.” Not saying there aren’t problems to be addressed, just that the number looks more concerning than it actually is. Wouldn’t be surprised if some are outdated as well.