Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

HardSun · 2025-11-12 02:29:01

unixuser wrote:

So, what's the fucking point ?

Its memory safe and modern

blackhole · 2025-11-12 08:12:49

The point is that it's funded and organised by the Rust Foundation, which is a consortium of Microsoft, google and Amazon, along with Huawei and the founder Mozilla (who famously laid off all the developers).

In other words there is a business case for rust, otherwise those top three wouldn't be involved.

At this moment in time, there are no serious efforts to rewrite any OS in rust, but time will tell and as other "memory safe" languages are on the rise, it may never happen anyway. There is a corporate demand for memory safe languages at the application level - this where the likes of MS and google are focused.

But anyway, back to topic: It appears there are already hard rust depends for Debian?

But what this thread amounts to is complaining about a corporate backed language being adopted in an already corporate controlled distribution which itself distributes a lot of already corporate funded and developed software such as the Linux kernel, X.org, gnome, systemd, wayland, etc. That horse has bolted.

Last edited by blackhole (2025-11-12 08:20:18)

stargate-sg1-cheyenne-mtn · 2025-11-12 10:42:24

^^^re: quoting @blackhole

That horse has bolted

can dead(longtime) horse(bones) bolt? [/sarcasm]

speaking of horse bones

or just bones in general

if everyone cared

haters gonna hate

spliskin · 2025-11-12 13:25:20

@greenjeans

timely post

Saw that too.. Just was being nice.

@unixuser

Incredible, what's the point ? Looks totally useless to rewrite working stuff ?
It is not about security, security is how you code, not about the language. C is really secure IF you know how to use it.
It is not about performances

There is no panacea to the issue. It does not make software more or less safe. Either way. Just hope people start paying attention and not jump ship to replace system components with it.

Not when the language itself still leaks memory and it's known, and hasn't been fixed, yet.

greenjeans · 2025-11-12 16:04:32

Its memory safe and modern

Yes but is it free of evil particles?

Ron · 2025-11-13 10:49:06

And then there's this:

Ubuntu's Rust Transition Hits Another Bump as sudo-rs Security Vulnerabilities Show Up

rygo6 · 2025-11-13 20:29:42

Can devuan fork away from this?

Or does this mean debian and all related have fallen to vortex of unnecessary corporate incentives making people mess with things they don't need to?

fsmithred · 2025-11-13 20:34:47

List of rust packages in devuan: https://termbin.com/xakg

I can't post the whole list here.

413 Request Entity Too Large

TLDR:
70430 packages, including virtual packages
3561 packages, excluding virtual packages

tux_99 · 2025-11-13 21:18:27

fsmithred wrote:

70430 packages, including virtual packages
3561 packages, excluding virtual packages

That might well be but so far they are completely irrelevant, i.e. none of them provide anything useful for which there aren't better non-rust alternatives available.

I checked my Devuan installs and despite not having consciously avoided installing software written in rust I don't have any such software installed (except possibly the kernel, not sure if I make use of the kernel parts written in rust or not).

Last edited by tux_99 (2025-11-13 21:22:07)

exponentialmatrix · 2025-11-13 22:35:09

apt is a very mature 25+ year old project and with plenty of users. They must be plenty of qualified annoyed people willing to fork it.

golinux · 2025-11-13 23:25:51

Those of us who have been using Linux for decades have done our part. Now, it's up to the younger generation to acquire that knowledge or it will just be a footnote in history . . . or not even that. So saddle up if you want to save apt or any of the other code that is being hijacked to turn Linux into windows.

greenjeans · 2025-11-14 00:28:13

^^damn right!

Get yer butts busy whippersnappers!

golinux · 2025-11-14 00:29:42

/me sends greenjeans a hug . . .

zapper · 2025-11-14 03:20:59

Those of us who have been using Linux for decades have done our part. Now, it's up to the younger generation to acquire that knowledge or it will just be a footnote in history . . . or not even that. So saddle up if you want to save apt or any of the other code that is being hijacked to turn Linux into windows.

An open source windows? Isn't that what reactos is for?

...
But yeah, we don't need linux to become like windows.

spliskin · 2025-11-20 02:22:43

Alrightly - so another rust victim - CloudFlare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpXBenAvhi8

So yeah there you go. CloudFlare claims Rust is easy to write code in rust that causes memory corruption.

Rust is not as safe as claimed. As expected.

blackhole · 2025-11-20 18:26:33

sudo-rs (sudo rewritten in rust) has had few recent vulnerabilities:

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tra … st-sudo-rs
https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-7867-1

g4sra · 2025-11-20 19:31:23

@spliskin

rust that causes memory corruption

I read that as "rust that causes memory corrosion"

Amazing how the subconscious mind tries to warn us of the truth.

spliskin · 2025-11-20 19:37:25

Pretty much. Same difference. It's not memory safe, but it sure is modern. 🤣

exponentialmatrix · Yesterday 21:55:27

instead of complaining. What are the alternatives? fil-C is C with garbage collection, it's slower and less efficient, but you can take your old C code and with relatively few modifications port it in fil-C .With the garbage collection, it's even better then rust in security and you get to keep almost all your battle tested code. And you can still maintain in parallel normal C code for ultra efficiency if you need it. You could even use a hybrid approach for a balance of security and speed. This strategy could allow for a viable fork with less man power.

does sudo needs to be fast? Isn't the user the slowest part? Does apt need to be fast? How much of apt's time is the network download and decompressions?

@spliskin
Just a warning. Lunduke is the tabloid of tech. He often over does it with click bait and sensationalism.

spliskin · Yesterday 22:34:03

First, yes they could use fil-c - Problem is it doesn't have the marketing behind it. That's just reality. I'm a pragmatist and agree with you there.

Second I understand Lunduke.. problem is I agree.
It's more of a good natured ribbing as far as I see it. Some of this is 100% ridiculous. It should be derided by all who have sense.

That's all. Otherwise I don't care if you write it in python, just don't make a claim esp in the face of mounting evidence that you're wrong. When I say you or you're here I'm not talking about you @exponentialmatrix.. I'm speaking in the proverbial sense.

Last edited by spliskin (Yesterday 22:34:44)

greenjeans · Yesterday 23:03:20

So in just going over the general reaction it seems that rust proponents are saying that it was a lack of skills in rust programming on the part of Cloudflare folks that caused the issue.

So basically they are saying "Any code can be bad if it's not written carefully and correctly".

Really good to hear you say that boys, doses of reality often bite but there are long-term rewards to understanding life how it really is.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#51 2025-11-12 02:29:01

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#52 2025-11-12 08:12:49

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#53 2025-11-12 10:42:24

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#54 2025-11-12 13:25:20

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#55 2025-11-12 16:04:32

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#56 2025-11-13 10:49:06

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#57 2025-11-13 20:29:42

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#58 2025-11-13 20:34:47

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#59 2025-11-13 21:18:27

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#60 2025-11-13 22:35:09

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#61 2025-11-13 23:25:51

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#62 2025-11-14 00:28:13

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#63 2025-11-14 00:29:42

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#64 2025-11-14 03:20:59

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#65 2025-11-20 02:22:43

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#66 2025-11-20 18:26:33

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#67 2025-11-20 19:31:23

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#68 2025-11-20 19:37:25

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#69 Yesterday 21:55:27

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#70 Yesterday 22:34:03

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

#71 Yesterday 23:03:20

Re: Hard Rust requirements for APT from may next year

Board footer