it seemed like the innocent(ish) holy wars of the past like emacs vs vi; but it’s taken on a whole new destructive trajectory of its own and the old guard would rather see Linux ossify into irrelevancy rather than letting the next generation take over.

it reminds me of an old quote from a general to the effect of: if 5 americans survive a nuclear war and 4 russian survive; then we’ve won and it was worth it.

either that or it’s like the technological equivalent of the the democratic leadership w disaffected democratic voters leading to defeat in this last election or an elderly driver whose grown children are trying to take away their keys before things get worse; all are refusing to acknowledge the writing on the wall because they think they still got it, but they don’t.

What sort of advise are they giving? I’m out of the loop

the small request that those contributions be in the language of the project isn’t something to fight against.

When the contributions not in C are explicitly approved by the project owner, it seems that the 30+ year maintainers shouldn’t try to blockade any progress from actually happening. Working multi-language projects isn’t that much of a nightmare, if code governance and boundaries are well-defined and enforced.

Definitely a case of “everyone sucks here”. The maintainer being a dick and sabotaging R4L without technical justification and Hector putting it on blast.

This kind of stuff happens in big companies too, but you don’t see it because it’s not in a public mailing list. One of my teams had a developer who stood on tables to yell until his opinion was accepted, and one time when another developer wouldn’t back down, he threw a chair at them. That angry developer worked there for another 7 years until retirement, while many smart team members around him quit rather than continue dealing with him.

…but still fails to answer the question of “should we continue implementing kernel things in rust”.