The same old arguments...

Posted Dec 7, 2025 20:56 UTC (Sun) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
In reply to: The same old arguments... by josh
Parent article: Eventual Rust in CPython

> We get hobbyist OSes (and other hobbyist projects) because the
> people working on them put in the work to make them happen

Yes. But that only works if the upstreams accept such work and don’t not only put too many hurdles in for hobbyists and raise complexity but also actively throw sticks and stones into their paths and extort “protection” money (money to merge the patches).

The same old arguments...

Posted Dec 8, 2025 22:56 UTC (Mon) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link]

> Yes. But that only works if the upstreams accept such work and don’t not only put too many hurdles in for hobbyists and raise complexity but also actively throw sticks and stones into their paths and extort “protection” money (money to merge the patches).

As I'm sure you are aware, in FOSS, every project has the fundamental moral right to "self-determinate": to decide what, if any, level of formal or informal support and guarantees it wishes to make.

You normally hear about this in context of projects having the moral right to provide no guarantees and no support: the proverbial "as is". However, this works both ways. If a project, such as Rust, wishes to hold themselves to a higher standard — such as requiring all code to pass CI before declaring a target is supported — **YOU CANNOT STOP THEM FROM DOING SO**.

Calling this "extorting protection money" is so disingenuous and hostile that you should honestly be ashamed of saying that.