The question is going to be how much of that unknown/untested percentage actually matters. I mean, there's even a question of how much the 12.25% of known test regressions actually matter.
> Also, I have major issues with dumping GPL userspace utilities, for an MIT license suite, that is known to not be feature complete, only, and literally only because it was written in Rust. This does not make sense, and this is not good for users.
Thinking about it, I guess I have to agree. This allows ubuntu to avoid releasing security fixing patches if they so choose. You can't do that with GPLed code. It means they can send out binary security fixes and delay the source code release for as long as they like or indefinitely. Which is pretty convenient for a company that sells extended security support packages.
> This allows ubuntu to avoid releasing security fixing patches if they so choose. You can't do that with GPLed code. It means they can send out binary security fixes and delay the source code release for as long as they like or indefinitely
The GPL does not state that the source code for any modification must be released immediately, it doesn't even set some kind of time limit so it technically doesn't prevent indefinite delays either.
there's even a question of how much the 12.25% of known test regressions actually matter.
I would think that the regression tests are actually the most worthwhile targets for the new project to validate against: they represent real-world usage and logic corner cases that are evidently easy to get wrong. These are not the kind of bugs that Rust is designed to eliminate.
I agree. But I don't know that the 12.25% of test regressions are regression tests or unit tests from the gnu core utils.
I believe Ubuntu simply copied and transposed a bunch of tests from gnu core utils and that's where these ultimately came from. That doesn't really mean that all these tests arose due to regressions. (for sure some probably did).
> Also, I have major issues with dumping GPL userspace utilities, for an MIT license suite, that is known to not be feature complete, only, and literally only because it was written in Rust. This does not make sense, and this is not good for users.
Thinking about it, I guess I have to agree. This allows ubuntu to avoid releasing security fixing patches if they so choose. You can't do that with GPLed code. It means they can send out binary security fixes and delay the source code release for as long as they like or indefinitely. Which is pretty convenient for a company that sells extended security support packages.