Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don’t care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can’t trust it anymore. I don’t think this would be “better” just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don’t think that Microsoft software is the best software.

Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn’t affect Linux at all.

If its proprietary, then it can’t be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I’m actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn’t need to use it anyway.

Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?

Why do you think the MIT License is bad? I am not the one making the claim it being bad, so I’m not the on in defending position. It’s an open source license and I like to use it too (granted my work is just little small hobby tools). I think the MIT License has pros and cons, but isn’t straight a bad license in this context.

I wouldn’t put Devuan to a “other random distro” list, and I didn’t heard much bad about it either. But I also wasn’t much into it like you do with your research and providing documentation to achieve that yourself. I personally would probably go Devuan, if I was Debian user and the only thing I would want to change is getting rid of systemd. Unless my further investigation and research finds reasons not to (I did not read anything convincing yet).

And by all means, if someone wants to do it themselves, go for it. You even provide a tutorial / documentation to achieve that. I appreciate and respect that a lot.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to directly use Devuan distribution instead ripping out and replacing systemd from Debian? Users would have a whole community for support, and dedicated developers and maintainers to keep the system work optimally without systemd, while maintaining what Debian makes great.

Off course for study and learning how to get rid of systemd is a great exercise.

“liberated” sounds like SystemD is a jail for your system. If that is such of a high value to you not to use SystemD, maybe its time for you to change the distribution maybe? There are dedicated distributions with the alternatives to SystemD in mind, tested carefully and operating optimally. Devuan, AniX and MX Linux are based on Debian. Have a look at https://itsfoss.com/systemd-free-distros/ .

If you are not sure, then its best to leave it run. My “assumption” would be that it is safe to cancel during the download period. I am actually not familiar how Linux Mint GUI operates, as I am using the upgrade and update commands on an Archlinux* system in the terminal. So I can see exactly what it is doing, and when it enters into installation phase after downloading all necessary packages. During installation I wouldn’t cancel the process. My suggestion was for you to look into.

*EndeavourOS

Edit: Typo

Can’t you stop the upgrade process from the GUI?

Better run a terminal command, which you can execute a command right after the job is done. Something like upgrade && shutdown (off course you need to fill the full command). If you can, I would stop the upgrade process in the GUI and run it as a command instead for full control. Next time you just run the command.

How is it a takeover, if they write their own set of tools?

Ehm no… But it makes writing memory safe code in Rust easier by default than C.

Yes, that’s what Rust is about.

The statement I was referring to and answering to wasn’t in context. It was an absolute statement about the language itself:

Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.

I am not suggesting that throwing decades old tested and developed code is immediately safer than rewriting it from scratch. Sometimes a rewrite (be it in same language or different) might result in better code, given time. But that is not what I was replying and discussing to.

why? bevause they gave people an option that dorsnt affect anyone else?

It always starts like this. I criticized the initial optional and ai features in Firefox. People said “oh its just this one time in the PDF” and so on. What happened? Mozilla added more and more Ai functionality, to a point where they had to integrate a kill switch because so many were bothered by. Also even if you disable all the features, it affects you in some way. Because now they will not integrate an alternative feature without the need of Ai. That means if you disable Ai, you miss out on features otherwise. And it takes lot of resources and development time from the team for stuff you don’t care.

Therefore I do not accept the defense of “it is optional, it does not affect you” for these various reasons I just outlined.

Ehm, thats not what I said? Let try me again: If you write code in C and in Rust, both spend about 5 years time and check them equally often, with equally amount of experience, then it is by default easier to write the safe code in Rust. Because Rust is safe by default.

If you compare a new project to an old project, that has nothing to do with my statement.

No, it does not depend on what I do. In Rust it is by definition easier to write safe code than in C.

Rust is absolutely not faster or easier than C. It’s safer but that’s it.

Depends on what you mean by “easier”. It is easier to write safe code in Rust.

I disagree with MIT License being bad. I agree on all other fronts of your statements.

People will blame Rust for the incompetence of Ubuntu team to adopt the uutils as default prematurely.