>The reality is if someone like this doesn't see "the value" in rust then they should be required to find someone else who can be trusted as a maintainer to handle the code
Replacing maintainers that worked on a piece of code for years with someone else only because 'they don't see "the value" in rust" is insane.
>I don't know how folks like Linus actually expect rust to pick up in the kernel if we don't address the maintainers who clearly want nothing to do with this.
There are reasons why maintainers want nothing to do with Rust. Maybe, just maybe, improve Rust instead of complaining about Linux maintainers on social media, because in the end shouting into the void about it will improve absolutely nothing about the situation.
I'm calling it now, Rust in Linux will be gone in few years just like C++. The only reason why it hasn't been done yet is because more people are interested in Rust than in the hell called C++.
@phnt Have you heard of the concept of "brilliant jerks" and why every functioning organization must reject them?
It does not matter if you are the nicest person in the world when you write garbage code. It just so happens to be that most people that write good code aren't really social people and are abrasive to people that continuously try to contribute with bad code.
Because in the end good code works and bad code badly performs if it even works.
If you let anybody that barely knows how to code contribute, you end with the mess called GNOME.
@phnt @rain this is, in my at this point fairly considerable experience, *spectacularly* wrong. I know of people at all four corners of that matrix, but I see no clear correlation; assholes aren't inherently better coders. given this, I would much rather bias towards non-assholes and then worry about code quality, than assume we must bias towards assholes or else we'll never get good code.
You can't judge code quality based on extreme versions of personalities. It isn't a matrix, nor a polar opposite. You can't simplify it as such, because that would imply that only nice people and assholes exist. Which just isn't the case.
All I wanted to say is that people that write good code usually aren't social. There are many examples of this. Many open-source projects that had really good quality destroyed their reputation, because the developers weren't social people and didn't know how to talk to people. One such, rather extreme, example is GrapheneOS.
This also doesn't mean that people that are social and know how to talk to people write bad code. It isn't mutually exclusive. However if you work only with people that are nicer or less socially awkward in comparison, you are more likely to run into bad code.
It just happens to be that on the spectrum more good code is written by less social people. This is also one of the reasons why companies will never let developers talk to customers.
Since this is a Linux thread, let's use that as an example.
Almost all of the Linux maintainers can be abrasive at times, but the code quality is generally really good. However if you replaced them with people that are nice, eventually they would start to slowly care less about the code quality than writing criticism about the patches and suggesting improvements. _None_ of Linux maintainers to my knowledge act like "you wrote bad code therefore go away, we don't want you here" unless it was deliberate like one of the university experiments.
@phnt
> Almost all of the Linux maintainers can be abrasive at times, but the code quality is generally really good.
😏
Oh you!
But otherwise — yeah, you have a point. Introducing such a tectonic shift to a mature project is a challenge and might not even be possible, appealing to the public won't help. The Rust crowd is better off abandoning that pile of garbage that is Linux kernel and making their own, maybe borrowing heavily from it.
@adamw @rain
