9:01 a.m.
Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
For example, I recently read this article:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-where-rust-will-fit-into-...
It’s part of a longstanding push towards non-copyleft software
and away
from the GNU toolchain, but it also raises technical questions
relevant
to GNU packages: on writing memory-safe programs (relevant to
GCC and
notably its Rust frontend, to Guile), on assembling OSes/distros
(toolchain, Guix), on bootstrapping (Mes), on increasing OS
fault-tolerance and security (Hurd), etc.
Perhaps we can’t define yet a shared vision for GNU Assembly
packages,
but we could, in this example, work out a shared response.
Plus, that
would be good use of our brand new gnu.tools blog.
As you write, an important subset of GNU Assembly packages is
indeed concerned with systems programming. But there are many
more great GNU packages that fill roles that you wouldn’t
necessarily associate with the image that the term “operating
system” evokes. (An example is Lilypond.) These packages *do*
embody the GNU philosophy (or is it really the Emacs philosophy…?)
of blurring the often arbitrary distinction between users and
developers, granting users as much freedom from administrators and
developers as feasible.
That, I think, is a unifying theme for most GNU packages.
I’m convinced that we can formulate a shared vision for what an
operating system (and its applications) should offer to users —
and how that relates to the current state of GNU+Linux distros and
compares to other popular platforms (such as mobile phone systems
or browsers). This cannot merely be limited to technical
features, but must be derived from the promise of respecting the
users’ authority, enabling them to exercise these liberties not
just theoretically.
In my opinion it would be important *not* to limit this discussion
to system-level software, but to find a mental framework that
accommodates system-level software and non-system applications
alike.
--
Ricardo