Getting ahead of the curve regarding potential future legislations/regulations around unsafe languages, which may introduce contract conditions, liabilities…etc (See 2:30-4:30 of this talk for an overview).

If they listened to the calls describing this move as premature, and it arguably was, they could have gotten strapped for time later.

An implementation in a good safe fast modern language that developers actually enjoy has other tangible benefits of course. But if people want the “corpo reason”, the above should provide an answer.

There should be a rule against low quality posts.

The project description reminded me of a project I saw years ago. I looked it up, and I’m pretty sure it was oxen, which is surprisingly still going, although their hub looks half-dead.

If it’s Tex, it’s not modern.
It’s like:
“We have Swiss cheese with no holes.”
Swiss cheese, or no holes? Pick one!

There is the odd (genuine) security issue tbf. But they are more of the variant:

“If an attacker is close enough to sneak that on me, then I’m probably already screwed.”

Why are you hallucinating facts?

• There is no “team of 200 rust developers”.
• “<lang> developer” is not an identity.
• uutils is not a “professional” project, as in people are paid by the (non-existing) uutils company to work on it.
• The project started as personal hobby of one person during COVID, There were no 200 contributors who sprung up magically and simultaneously from the start.

They wanted to avoid the “politics” and are not entertaining comments or explaining their decisions. It’s not up for discussion.

If you think you saw a group of 200 people starting uutils and doing this. You should seek medical help.

The “reported upstream” link is broken (fixed link).

Maybe I missed it, but you don’t seem to mention anywhere sub-file sync (binary diffing) support (or presumably the lack of it), which is very important for fast syncing when files actually change!

Didn’t read the whole thing because I had to stop at the right column at the start.

Federated is “decentralized”. The correct word the author is looking for is “distributed”. And even then, direct exclusive P2P is only one form of “distributed”. Hybrid/Multiple approaches are also wide-spread (torrents anyone!).

Not sure how a technical writer gets such a basic aspect wrong.

Also, beyond the closed source aspect, and being a closed up platform in general, Discord was always literal spyware. And pretending like open-source projects who chose to use it didn’t know what they were doing, and glossing over the actions that ranged from collective nagging to almost literal fights in some communities because of such choices, reeks of willful blindness.