Setting The Record Straight On Linux Sudo

Summary

This video clarifies key misconceptions about the Sudo RS project, Rust's role in Linux, and the licensing of the Sudo tool. It tackles the confusion over whether Sudo has ever been GPL-licensed, explaining it has always been under a permissive ISC license. The video also highlights the debates surrounding memory safety in programming, particularly in the context of Rust's growing adoption in Linux projects. Finally, it addresses some community resistance to Rust and the unnecessary political theories around its use, encouraging constructive conversations and debunking myths around software licensing.

Takeaways

• 😀 Pseudo RS is a rewrite of the pseudo project, likely to be adopted in Ubuntu 25.10, with discussions still ongoing and some details to be finalized.
• 😀 Todd Miller, the maintainer of Sudo for 30 years, is involved in the project and working collaboratively with the Rust rewrite team.
• 😀 The Rust rewrite of pseudo is not just a change for the sake of it; it aims to improve security, particularly through memory safety, which is a key point in the discussion.
• 😀 Memory safety is considered the norm in modern programming, and the debate on Rust's memory safety is a recurring theme in discussions about the language.
• 😀 Some people prefer to improve C code rather than adopt Rust, but the speaker acknowledges that this is a valid perspective, even though they don’t think it’s the best way to proceed.
• 😀 Some people are simply not interested in Rust, either because they don't like it or because they prefer languages they are more familiar with, which is understandable.
• 😀 Despite some resistance, classic C projects are not going away and will likely remain integral to Linux, especially given the ongoing security issues.
• 😀 A misconception exists that Rust is a 'political takeover' of Linux, with some people even believing that the 'furries' are behind this movement, which the speaker dismisses as an unfounded concern.
• 😀 The most common misinterpretation regarding the pseudo project’s license is that it has switched from a GPL license to an MIT license. This is incorrect.
• 😀 Pseudo has always been under a permissive license, specifically a modified ISC license, which is functionally equivalent to MIT or BSD licenses, and not a copyleft license like GPL.
• 😀 The idea that pseudo was ever GPL-licensed is a myth. The project has been permissively licensed since its inception in 1985, long before GPL was introduced.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the pseudo RS project?

The main purpose of the pseudo RS project is to rewrite the existing pseudo project, which is being adopted in Ubuntu 25.10. This rewrite is not just for the sake of change, but to collaborate with the maintainer of sudo, Todd Miller, and to improve overall functionality, with a focus on memory safety.

What is Todd Miller's involvement in the pseudo RS project?

Todd Miller, the maintainer of sudo for the past 30 years, is actively involved in the pseudo RS project. He is part of the discussions and collaboration, ensuring that the project maintains its original functionality while addressing memory safety concerns.

What is the significance of memory safety in the context of the Rust language?

Memory safety is a key benefit of the Rust programming language. Rust ensures safe memory management, preventing issues like null pointer dereferencing and buffer overflows, which are common in languages like C. This is crucial for maintaining secure and stable software.

Why do some people prefer improving C code over adopting Rust?

Some people believe that instead of switching to a new language like Rust, efforts should be focused on improving existing C code by adopting better practices for memory safety. While this perspective is understandable, the speaker argues that Rust offers inherent benefits that make it a better choice.

Why do some people oppose the adoption of Rust in Linux?

Some individuals oppose Rust in Linux because they are either unfamiliar with it, have had negative experiences with it in the past, or simply prefer to stick with languages they are comfortable with. However, the speaker suggests that not every language suits everyone's preferences, and that's perfectly valid.

What are the concerns regarding Rust's adoption in Linux from a political perspective?

There are some who view Rust's adoption as part of a larger political agenda, with claims that 'furries' are somehow taking over Linux through Rust. The speaker dismisses these concerns, pointing out that such fears are based on misconceptions and not on any substantial change in the Linux community's core values.

What misunderstanding exists about the license of the pseudo project?

A common misconception is that the pseudo project uses a GPL license. Some people have argued that switching to pseudo RS (which uses an MIT license) would be a bad move because the MIT license allows proprietary use, but this argument is based on a misunderstanding.

What is the actual license used by the pseudo project?

The pseudo project has always been distributed under a permissive license similar to the MIT license. In fact, it uses a slightly modified version of the ISC license, which is a permissive license, meaning it is not a copyleft license and allows users to freely use, modify, and distribute the software without the obligation to contribute back.

What is the difference between the ISC license and the MIT license?

The ISC license is very similar to the MIT license, with the main difference being the ISC license's inclusion of a 'sponsored by' clause at the bottom. This makes the ISC license functionally equivalent to the MIT and BSD licenses, offering similar freedoms and being compatible with GPL code.

Why is the argument about moving from a GPL license to an MIT license for pseudo RS flawed?

The argument is flawed because the pseudo project has never been under a GPL license. It has always been under a permissive license, and transitioning to an MIT license (which is also permissive) does not represent a significant shift in terms of licensing structure. This means concerns about proprietary forks are irrelevant in this case.