At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.

What are your thoughts abouth this?

  • Arehandoro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    The correct title should be “Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with MIT licenced uutils”.

    • shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Waiting for Canonical to up sell proprietary utils features by subscription. Ubuntu’s regular release cycles were brilliant in 2004 when there weren’t a lot of alternatives but why does it still exist?

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    I’m mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that’s a good thing, but if it’s done because it’s MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.