antihumanitarian
My first programming experience, an online class, was in a Linux VM. Linux made programming easy and delightful, Windows always made it a huge pain. As time went on, more of what I did was easier on Linux, and now everything is.
People haven’t really changed. As always, power corrupts. When the rewards are great enough, it seems people are often enough willing to compromise their integrity.
I have LTS and zen kernels installed in addition to the default Arch one, that should prevent this yes?
I really don’t blame them, security and privacy minded folk are more likely to use niche configs. Feels like for Linux stuff companies may be better served making APIs and letting the community handle it. Rclone for example implements a bunch, and last I knew had an unstable Proton plugin.
KDE Connect and Syncthing do the trick for most stuff. For all else, all hail the USB C M.2 NVME enclosure.
Given the ease of implantation of end to end encryption now, it’s a reasonable assumption that anything not e2ee is being data mined. E2ee has extensive security benefits, for example even if your data is dumped the info is still useless. So, there has to be a compelling reason to not use it.
FOSS in general needs better means of financial support. While the software is free and libre, developer time is not, and ultimately they gotta eat and pay bills. I hope they get positive results and don’t catch much unnecessary flak.
For people lacking context, Boeing split off and sold their division that became Spriti Aerosystems. The theory at the time was that Boeing’s core competency wasn’t building airplanes, it was managing relationships with other vendors. In particular, the actual plane manufacturing part of the company was undesirable due to perceived poor “Return on Net Assets.” The theory they pitched to shareholders was they should sell off non obviously profitable divisions so they reduced asset liability while keeping the same or better profits.
That was their explanation, of course it was a terrible idea.
Key detail in the actual memo is that they’re not using just an LLM. “Wallach anticipates proposals that include novel combinations of software analysis, such as static and dynamic analysis, and large language models.”
They also are clearly aware of scope limitations. They explicitly call out some software, like entire kernels or pointer arithmetic heavy code, as being out of scope. They also seem to not anticipate 100% automation.
So with context, they seem open to any solutions to “how can we convert legacy C to Rust.” Obviously LLMs and machine learning are attractive avenues of investigation, current models are demonstrably able to write some valid Rust and transliterate some code. I use them, they work more often than not for simpler tasks.
TL;DR: they want to accelerate converting C to Rust. LLMs and machine learning are some techniques they’re investigating as components.
The comments from that article are some of the most vitriolic I’ve ever seen on a technical issue. Goes to prove the maintainer’s point though.
Some are good for a laugh though, like assertions that Rust in the kernel is a Microsoft sabotage op or LLVM is for grifters and thieves.