this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
33 points (86.7% liked)
Linux
7128 readers
325 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fork.
There is no reason for it. The odds of success would be low compared to the current process which for the most part is going along pretty well despite all the melodrama surrounding it.
There is no point in forking. The problem is not adding Rust to the Kernel, the problem is the C developers to get to work on it together. Forking does not solve this issue. Its not about proving being more efficient or not.
Perhaps the problem is you wanting developers to work on something they don't want to work on.
The problem is wanting to shoehorn a new language into an existing, long-standing large-codebase project.
Forking is the obvious solution but rustaceans know that's a pretty daunting task...
The next best thing is to develop in parallel, refactoring parts (usually drivers) without interfering with the existing codebase.
Forking does not solve the problem, it only escapes it. Its waste of time and effort in this case. The solution is that the devs work together. Otherwise it makes no sense to have Rust if no one works together. Discussion is the best way to handle this and to come to a solution. Its such an important topic that you have to discuss it, this is healthy, this is how it should be done. This is how its done.
If people can't work together, forking usually "solves" the problem.
Let's see if they end up working together.
Forking does not solve the problem, it escapes it. The problem in the main Rust Kernel will stay, not working together, arguing, while the fork might work for those who work on the fork. This is not a driver or feature where they can fork, work on it separately. It completely misses the point.