Comment by whatis991 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatis991 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It has a more lax license AFAIK. Also, many Rust projects and libraries have been abandoned, or are in so-so shapes.

Edit:

To specify, new projects like sudo-rs may seem promising, but going by observation and experience with similar projects, there is no guarantee that sudo-rs and similar projects will be successful, good and continued to be maintained. The problems with old projects can end up applying to new projects as well. And projects in Rust are no exception, going by experience with existing, older Rust projects.

Aside, a pet peeve I have is that for instance Ruffle has not turned out as successful as I had hoped for, even after several years and many sponsors. The proprietary Flash runtimes written in C still outperform Ruffle greatly in some cases, causing problems for some users that want to use Ruffle instead of other runtimes.

> Also, many Rust projects and libraries have been abandoned, or are in so-so shapes.

This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur; the state of non-sudo-rs projects/libraries says nothing about the state of sudo-rs itself.

Not to mention that I'd imagine a similar statement would probably be true for projects and libraries written in any reasonably popular language.

If there are 1000 projects that aren't sudo-rs but are similarly load bearing, and they have all been abandoned/in so-so shape, you're right that it doesn't actually say anything about sudo-rs, but there's a highly probable outcome that will be inferred by most people. Incorrectly or otherwise.

How is this a counter argument for anything? A more permissive license is not inherently a bad thing. Many C and C++ projects are also abandon or in so-so condition, why you uniquely call out Rust makes little sense. Either sudo-rs fills the void or it doesn't, but it is a counter point to this idea that open source projects have no path of evolution. Just because that path doesn't look like how you want it to doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> It has a more lax license AFAIK.

Sudo uses the OpenBSD license, while sudo-rs is dual licensed under MIT and Apache 2.0. Both licenses seem equally permissive to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com