loveknight

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35495679

Earlier post version: image/text.

From another article referenced there:

The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or "permissive" (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.

There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.

(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others in the cross-posts.)

Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he "Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities", by his own proud admission.

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35495679

Earlier post version: image/text.

From another article referenced there:

The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or "permissive" (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.

There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.

(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others here and in the cross-posts.)

Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he "Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities", by his own proud admission.

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35495679

Earlier post version: image/text.

From another article referenced there:

The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or "permissive" (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.

There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.

(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others in the cross-posts.)

Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he "Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities", by his own proud admission.

Earlier post version: image/text.

From another article referenced there:

The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or "permissive" (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.

There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.

(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others in the cross-posts.)

Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he "Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities", by his own proud admission.

It's currently in its third edition, published November 2024.

ISBN-10: 0-13-817218-8

ISBN-13: 978-0-13-817218-3

I've discovered it (in its second edition) in my local library just yesterday. Even what little I've read so far has significantly improved my understanding, e.g. about decorators.

The testimonials for second edition are really something:

“I have been recommending this book enthusiastically since the first edition appeared in 2015. This new edition, updated and expanded for Python 3, is a treasure trove of practical Python programming wisdom that can benefit pro- grammers of all experience levels.”

—Wes McKinney, Creator of Python Pandas project, Director of Ursa Labs

“If you’re coming from another language, this is your definitive guide to taking full advantage of the unique features Python has to offer. I’ve been working with Python for nearly twenty years and I still learned a bunch of useful tricks, especially around newer features introduced by Python 3. Effective Python is crammed with actionable advice, and really helps define what our community means when they talk about Pythonic code.”

—Simon Willison, Co-creator of Django

“Now that Python 3 has finally become the standard version of Python, it’s already gone through eight minor releases and a lot of new features have been added throughout. Brett Slatkin returns with a second edition of Effective Python with a huge new list of Python idioms and straightforward recommendations, catching up with everything that’s introduced in version 3 all the way through 3.8 that we’ll all want to use as we finally leave Python 2 behind. Early sections lay out an enormous list of tips regarding new Python 3 syntaxes and concepts like string and byte objects, f-strings, assignment expressions (and their special nickname you might not know), and catch-all unpacking of tuples. Later sections take on bigger subjects, all of which are packed with things I either didn’t know or which I’m always trying to teach to others, including ‘Metaclasses and Attributes’ (good advice includes ‘Prefer Class Decorators over Metaclasses’ and also introduces a new magic method ‘init_subclass()’ I wasn’t familiar with), ‘Concurrency’ (favorite advice: ‘Use Threads for Blocking I/O, but not Parallelism,’ but it also covers asyncio and coroutines correctly) and ‘Robustness and Performance’ (advice given: ‘Profile before Optimizing’). It’s a joy to go through each section as everything I read is terrific best practice information smartly stated, and I’m considering quoting from this book in the future as it has such great advice all throughout. This is the definite winner for the ‘if you only read one Python book this year...’ contest. —Mike Bayer, Creator of SQLAlchemy

More testimonials are available under the link above.

Book website: https://effectivepython.com/ (Don't buy from Amazon, of course.)

If you're like me and prefer printed books, look up the ISBN at euro-book (which also offers portals for Brasil, Mexico and the USA) to find any affordable used copies.

This is a little tutorial that I found in my search to learn how to use getopt (mind: not getopts, which is a completely different thing). I want to share it here because I find it refreshingly to the point. Just the main code block already tells almost the whole story:

#!/bin/bash
# Set some default values:
ALPHA=unset
BETA=unset
CHARLIE=unset
DELTA=unset

usage()
{
  echo "Usage: alphabet [ -a | --alpha ] [ -b | --beta ]
                        [ -c | --charlie CHARLIE ] 
                        [ -d | --delta   DELTA   ] filename(s)"
  exit 2
}

PARSED_ARGUMENTS=$(getopt -a -n alphabet -o abc:d: --long alpha,bravo,charlie:,delta: -- "$@")
VALID_ARGUMENTS=$?
if [ "$VALID_ARGUMENTS" != "0" ]; then
  usage
fi

echo "PARSED_ARGUMENTS is $PARSED_ARGUMENTS"
eval set -- "$PARSED_ARGUMENTS"
while :
do
  case "$1" in
    -a | --alpha)   ALPHA=1      ; shift   ;;
    -b | --beta)    BETA=1       ; shift   ;;
    -c | --charlie) CHARLIE="$2" ; shift 2 ;;
    -d | --delta)   DELTA="$2"   ; shift 2 ;;
    # -- means the end of the arguments; drop this, and break out of the while loop
    --) shift; break ;;
    # If invalid options were passed, then getopt should have reported an error,
    # which we checked as VALID_ARGUMENTS when getopt was called...
    *) echo "Unexpected option: $1 - this should not happen."
       usage ;;
  esac
done

echo "ALPHA   : $ALPHA"
echo "BETA    : $BETA "
echo "CHARLIE : $CHARLIE"
echo "DELTA   : $DELTA"
echo "Parameters remaining are: $@"

Just be sure to correct the inadvertent mixing of beta and bravo.

Edit: I figured it out: The solution is over a process substitution operator:

join <(echo "$var1") <(echo "$var2")

See also the comment by @notabot@piefed.social below, this StackOverflow comment, and the GNU documentation..

It's comparatively straightforward to use the content of one variable in join by using - to tell it to use standard input for that file:

echo $variable | join - anotherfile

However, is there a way to serve both input 'files' from variables, avoiding temporary files on the disk?

It seems like the easiest way would be via creating and mounting a temporary partition via tmpfs,

mount -t tmpfs -o size=50m tmpfs /mountpoint,

and just create temporary files in there. And afterwards clean things up.

So far I've also attempted here-documents, but apparently this too can only provide standard input, so that the other input still has to be served from a file.

Maybe one can also try doing it via named pipes (mkfifo), but I fear this could introduce lots of potentialities for errors.

Let me show you what I mean by giving an example:

# Assume we have this list of increasing numbers
140
141
145
180
190
...

# If we pick 150 as threshold, the output should consist of 145 and all larger values:
145
180
190
...

# In the edge case where 150 itself is in the list, the output should start with 150:
150
180
190
...

I guess one can always hack something together in awk with one or two track-keeper variables and a bit of control logic. However, is there a nicer way to do this, by using some nifty combination of simpler filters or awk functionalities?

One way would be to search for the line number n of the first entry larger than the threshold, and then print all lines starting with n-1. What command would be best suited for that?

Still, I'm also wondering: Can awk or any other standard tool do something like "for deciding whether to print this line, look at the next line"?

(In my use case, the list is short, so performance is not an issue, but maybe let's pretend that it were. Also, in my use case, all entries are unique, but feel free to work without this assumption.)

I don't have to tell anyone that commercial printers suck (with the possible exception of Brother, but how long will this last?). I've read people on Lemmy talk about the viability of making a FOSS printer. I'd like to keep these thoughts going.

From what I remember, there are four main challenges, listed descendingly by their apparent difficulty:

1. Handling ink
2. Meeting legal regulations
3. Moving the moving parts
4. Patents

Patent difficulties indeed should be avoidable, since decent printers have been out there for way more than 20 years, the usual duration of a patent.

Moving the moving parts with the high precision necessary does at first glance seem daunting, but I've read people say that this is a problem many people know how to solve.

Meeting the legal obligations may ne trickier: Printer fingerprints? Aerosols? Other health and environmental hazards?

Handling ink: From what I remember, this would be the main difficulty (unfortunately I can't find that post or comment anymore). One should avoid the problem of creating an own cartridge & nozzle production by designing the printer such that it can use an existing cartridge model (one for which there are good third-party offers). Still, one would have to solve the apparently very difficult problem that the ink/toner has to be handled under very precise conditions, regarding things like flow velocity, drying rate, and perhaps temperature.

In view of these challenges, I've started to think that maybe the best approach would be to try our best to find ex-employees of printer companies and convince them that they would be doing humanity a huge service if they were to contribute with whatever they legally can towards developing a FOSS printer.

Also, I've wondered whether the time to do this may be running out: If even Brother one day starts to crack down on third-party ink/toner, all the producers for third-party ink/toner could eventually go out of business; so that one may successfully develop a FOSS printer, only to have no other ink in the stores than the price-gouged one, which was the reason to do all this in the first place.

Do you have any corrections, specifications, or further thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

ISBN: 9780596005955

This book is extremely readable and gives a very good introduction to the various standard Unix shell commands (grep, sed, awk, tr, sort to name but a few) and how to tie them together to do useful things. It's very suitable if you have some experience with the command line at the level of individual commands but now want to see how to do construct more interesting pipelines and scripts. It includes an introduction to regular expressions. The fact that the book is already 20 years certainly means that some explanations and approaches are outdated, but since shell programming is at the core about text processing, almost all contents of the book are still highly relevant today.