I was right: Uutils to take over Ubuntu in 26.04; Debian next?

community
1

As that topic (of 27 days ago) was closed, I open another with an update.

@steffahn

I appreciate OP’s honest thoughts even when there are many statements I don’t agree with.
Also, arguably most of it isn’t super on-topic for our Rust user’s forum at large.
Perhaps your clarifying follow-up post could have benefited from a bit more brevity, anyway.

I point out that at the bottom of this post there is a notice:

This topic will close 3 months after the last reply.

So my initial post was prematurely closed by @steffahn, and this is why I've posted this update separately.

Oxidizing Ubuntu: adopting Rust utilities by default
By Joe Brockmeier
March 18, 2025
If all goes according to plan, the Ubuntu project will soon be replacing many of the traditional GNU utilities with implementations written in Rust, such as those created by the uutils project, which we covered in February. Wholesale replacement of core utilities at the heart of a Linux distribution is no small matter, which is why Canonical's VP of engineering, Jon Seager, has released oxidizr. It is a command-line utility that helps users easily enable or disable the Rust-based utilities to test their suitability. Seager is calling for help with testing and for users to provide feedback with their experiences ahead of a possible switch for Ubuntu 25.10, an interim release scheduled for October 2025. So far, responses from the Ubuntu community seem positive if slightly skeptical of such a major change.
...
Fern Dziadulewicz asked if the move toward uutils meant that ""Ubuntu is actually kind of heading towards GNUlessness"", as with some other Linux distributions that shy away from GNU components. Seager responded that people should not read too much into the change:

This is not symbolic of any pointed move away from GNU components - it's literally just about replacing coreutils with a more modern equivalent.
Sure, the license is different, and it's a consideration, but it's by no means a driver in the decision making.

That response did not satisfy Joseph Erdosy, who wrote that he would migrate to Fedora or Rocky Linux if Ubuntu goes through with the change. He said that he liked Rust and the idea of better, memory-safe alternatives, but that he was unhappy that the biggest "oxidized" project was an MIT-licensed rewrite of GPL-licensed code.

This decision seems to align with a broader trend of companies deprecating GPL software in favour of more permissively licensed alternatives, often under the guise of "modernization."
However, the real-world impact is clear: free software is increasingly co-opted into proprietary ecosystems, weakening the principles that made Linux successful.

Well, there you have it folks. 27 days after I raised the alarm, and the danger is no longer at our door. The zombie-vampire has been invited in. Rust as a brand is now at the forefront of taking away our cherished GNU/Linux operating system, and replacing it with an MIT operating system. That's what "oxidation" means now. It literally means our free software movement rusting away so we can embrace memory safety and "modernization".

I'm outraged. I'll be uninstalling two Ubuntu machines ASAP. If Debian embraces uutils I'll be uninstalling 2 more systems.

And don't be confused. They want Debian next:

Sergey Davidoff wondered why the Debian alternatives system, which is used to designate default applications when multiple programs with the same function are installed, was not sufficient for experimenting with Rust utilities. Julian Andres Klode replied that the alternatives system would not be suitable because the existing package would need to cooperate. He also responded to another user, "rain", who had floated the idea of allowing users to switch out individual commands. Klode said that it was a bad idea to allow users to select between Rust and non-Rust implementations on a per-command level, as it would make the resulting systems hard to support.

So it's all or nothing. Either it's coming to Debian or we stop it.

I'm no longer on the fence about this. Anyone who wants to know why can read my follow-up post, the one that's "not super on-topic" and lacks "brevity", available in the first link thread. Maybe you'll find something there to disagree with. Which is fine, because I'm in a very disagreeable mood.

(edit: added a note about why this is a new thread and not a reply to the previous thread.)

2

I'm a gnu fan(atic) myself. But basically I just gave up and use MIT/Apache.

I think the word is "attrition".

3

Because your post had nothing really to do with Rust, and was simply causing drama (something that we thankfully don't have much of here). This post could be considered dodging moderator actions... but in any case, will probably get closed too. This is not the place for Linux political debates.

15 Likes
4

If I recall correctly, your issue isn't that Uutils are written in Rust -- it's the license that bothers you? This feels like an issue you should take up with the project as there's not much urlo (these forums) can do about it.

12 Likes
5

I think... if someone writes an implementation of some tools, in whatever language, they are free to release it under whatever license they like.

Possibly, maybe, it could be argued that such a reimplementation is a "derived work" and hence subject to the license of the original. That would be true if it was machine translation from C to Rust. Not so likely otherwise. Especially since most of the GNU core utils is derived from old Unix originals.

So basically nobody has a right to stop somebody else from writing software or to dictate what licence they release it under. A world where that was OK would be hell.

What we have here is: People "A" writing software and then people "B" complaining about it and trying to stop them. I'm not making sense out of that.

By all means let Ubuntu, Debian or whatever distro know what core utils you would prefer. But again, it does not seem right to be trying to dictate to volunteers, making a distro for free, like Debian what they can and cannot include in it.

Does this actually have anything to do with Rust, or Rust devs or us Rust users here? I don't see it.

Yours, Happy Rust on Debian User.

2 Likes
6

I just noticed that. I don't see that Rust is at the forefront of any such thing. Perhaps those RedHat devs are, better to shout at them about it than throwing mud at Rust, the Rust Foundation or us Rust users. All of whom have nothing to do with it.

4 Likes
7

The danger of what and for what? GNU/Linux as whole is not in danger - there are no changes to the kernel. Only the specific distributions might have any problems, and they can be relatively easily replaced - I've moved from Ubuntu to Arch a little earlier myself, so I can say this confidently.

5 Likes
9

It is, yes. The previous thread was closed for drama reasons. Keeping this thread open would be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

3 Likes