After Recent Kernel Drama, Rust for Linux Policy Put in Place
news.itsfoss.com
news.itsfoss.com
Let's be honest and call it what it was: "flamed himself into a temper tantrum".
The sad thing is that exactly this outcome of demanding more clear policy was the clear and better alternative to flamewar'ing from the get-go. Did the flames help get there? Not sure, maybe, but I don't think so, and they did cost a lot of people all around a lot of time, emotional energy and grey hair.
btw: I'm vocal about this because I'm a maintainer (not on the Linux kernel). Establishing a practice of people flaming and throwing temper tantrums in Linux kernel maintenance would absolutely simmer down into other projects. This can't and mustn't be how we work. Especially since maintenance resources are spread thin enough & overloaded already (a lot of commercial entities care only about shipping features, not doing grunt maintenance and bugfixes.)
second this. I've been following the drama a bit and the developer started throwing the whole tantrum (a very childish tantrum, if you ask me) as well as brigading on social media.
Linus was right in calling out they being the problem. The whole approach was wrong on different levels.
Genuine question, I have not followed closely.
I'll tell you, managing two systems in different languages that need to interoperate, it's tough. I'm so sad C/C++ couldn't get organized and iterate towards something better. There is a huge trade-off being made here - all the effort spent writing some things in Rust, well it's also not going to fixing all the C++ code. That's still there. Sometimes the forest gotta burn for new flowers to bloom. I hope it burns fast.