Ubuntu 25.10's Move To Rust Coreutils Is Causing Major Breakage For Some Executables
Ubuntu 25.10's Move To Rust Coreutils Is Causing Major Breakage For Some Executables
New non-copyleft Rust implementation. While we're at it, let's throw in some blockchain and AI as well. The eccentric South African billionaire CEO will be pleased.
Related and sane response:
(Low Level) https://youtu.be/Jgq551IhquA?t=4m7s
I will really appreciate the irony when it turns out that it’s the new implementation in Rust that is correct
GNU is really its own thing and not reallyPOSIX anymore. So GNU is right even if they are wrong.
This is not me advocating for GNU. I use BSD utils myself.
On this issue, your were right in a way. My understanding is that the uutils version of dd was respecting the fullblock parameter, causing problems on slow pipes. GNU ignore this and was doing partial writes. Uutils has been modified to match GNU and is “working” now. At least, a tested patch has been submitted.
New software has bugs??
canonical doing canonical things
And……fixed.
A few days ago we had a “performance” bug. Before the stories had even been written, the uutils was made 50% faster than GNU.
Now we have an actual difference in behaviour. But it is again fixed before the stories could even go out.
The anti-Rust crew is really trying to celebrate hear but it seems like uutils is proving them wrong so far.
We will see what happens in production I suppose.
I don't think it's anti-Rust. I like Rust. I don't like the uutils license.
Glad to see someone's working the bugs out.
I warned ya. Rust folks never make a true 1:1 replacement. They have to tweek it. Always.
This is such bad take only because it singles out rust for some weird reason. Tool total rewrites take work regardless of language
Oh, it's not the language. It's the type of people who not only like Rust, but have a compulsion / need / fixation on re-writing existing tools. They say it's so it's more secure, but honestly it's so they can apply their own opinions of how the tool should be. They always promise to make it a drop in replacement, but then then get rid of options, or change what they do... they can't help themselves. And that is the kind of people who volunteer to port tools to Rust. If they would stick to true 1:1 replacement, this wouldn't be an issue.
I like tool rewrites. But fixing major issues just before it is used in so many systems? It’s irresponsible.
It should of been given more time to mature. And Ubuntu is used so much, even the odd versions of it, that if one thing goes wrong later; this will cause a lot of bad press for both Rust and Ubuntu.
It should make the rust community very nervous. So many companies use the Ubuntu:latest tag in so many projects. And millions of people will hear, after being subject to the breakages, that it was all about Rust. Even though it’s not about Rust, just bad management
This type of comment is indistinguishable from the low-tier, rage bait comments under every Phoronix article.
This isn't a rage bait comment. Show me one Rust tool replacement made that didn't alter functionality in some way, causing edge cases, and sometimes even mainline usage, to break and scripts have to be written to accommodate. I've not seen it yet. If you have, I will gladly stand corrected. The language is great, it's the programmers at issue.
It has not even released yet.
Is your claim that non-Rust software gets written and runs perfectly without bugs the first time it is run, never requiring you to “tweek it”? That does not seem strongly evidence based. I assume by tweek, you mean tweak.
Also, they fixed this bug before this story, and your well researched comment, even appeared. The same thing happened just a few days ago when a similar “performance” bug was found. An entire chorus of idiots, including some prominent YouTubers, proudly proclaimed “I warned ya” for that one as well. Many predicting Ubuntu would need to be delayed or that people would be switching to other distros. Of course, the Rust version was already 50% faster than the C version by then and it was still weeks before the release date. Those comments did not age well.
And here we are again.
If you were trying to sound smart, it did not work.
Silksong has tons of bugs.
Dude, they feature a main bug to kill off all those other bugs.
If you rely on a bug, it becomes a feature.
There seems to be a bug in rust md5 implementation. This can break everything, but then everything can soon be fixed too.
Looks like md5 is fine, it's dd that's wrong
It's expected, because the tools are still in development and have not reached 100% test covered yet. Ubuntu 25.10 is not a long term version, so ideal for real world testing. But now we can expect copy-pasta ai blog posts all over the place. And personal attacks against the programming language itself.
Btw for me persona problem of this replacement is only license switching from strong copy left to permissive, I don't really like this trend it smells really bad from what corps actuality like more nowadays as fear as fire gpl.I don't know who exactly staying behind rust coreutils but devs just ignore all request about GPL or responding very cold or find any other stupid excuse like they don't wanna deal with it. At least they could give their direct point of their views and their motivation about it.but still will not support MIT licence as for main tools for importan core of system
That’s a pretty big problem, I couldn’t care less about the language. But stepping away from GPL is not good at all.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what the worst case scenario is... like, is some company going to get rich off of their proprietary
cpandsudoimplementation that they forked off of an open one?Why does it matter to you? If the developers are fine with the license and how the code they write can be used under it, that's their prerogative. You don't lose anything if some company also uses those programs.
What are you expecting them to say? "That's the license we chose for this thing we're allowing you to use for free. Use it or don't, we don't care"? They have no obligation to justify themselves to you.
What do you mean by support? Would be be donating money to the developers if the license was different? The developers don't get anything from you using their code.
This is what it's all about. We all know this.
Why would something that hasn't reached sufficient test coverage, or that fails one of the most common test suites around, be put into one of the largest distros around, lts version or not? It's honestly ridiculous
To test it. That's the whole reason why the 6 months releases between the LTS releases in Ubuntu exists.
Sure, but everybody is aware that roughly 30% of the Internet run on
ubuntu:latestand well, that will move to 25.10 soon.And yes, nobody should do this, using a latest tag for docker builds, but everybody does it ... So ....
25.10 isn't on the main upgrade path. Serious users migrate to the new LTS every two years, and very serious users pay for the twelve-year support plan.
Damn bruh, I didn't know that too.