Well, Ghidra's strength is batch processing at scale (which is why P-Code is less accurate than IDA's but still good enough) while allowing a massive amount of modules to execute. That allows huge distributed fleets of Ghidra. IDA has idalib now, and hcli will soon allow batch fleets, but IDA's focus is very much highly accurate analysis (for now), which makes it a lot less scalable performance wise (for now).
> Warp, while excellent, requires individual approval for each command—there’s no equivalent to Claude’s “dangerous mode” where you can grant blanket execution trust.
That’s a lie. I simply added “.*” to the whitelist. It’s a regex.
Spending significant time adapting core kernel code or developing a safe Rust abstraction for DMA, only to be summarily shut down by a single gatekeeper who cites "not wanting multiple languages" is demotivating. It's especially incongruent given that others have championed Rust in the kernel, and Linux has begun hosting Rust modules.
If the project leadership — i.e. Linus — truly wants Rust integrated, that stance needs to be firmly established as policy rather than left up to maintainers who can veto work they personally dislike. Otherwise, contributors end up in a limbo where they invest weeks or months, navigate the intricacies of the kernel's development model, and then find out a single personality is enough to block them. Even if that personality has valid technical reasons, the lack of a centralized, consistent direction on Rust's role causes friction.
Hector's decision to leave is understandable: either you have an official green light to push Rust forward or you don't. Half measures invite exactly this kind of conflict. And expecting one massive rewrite or an all‐encompassing patch is unrealistic. Integration into something as large and historically C‐centric as Linux must be iterative and carefully built out. If one top‐level developer says "no Rust", while others push "Rust for safety", that is a sign that the project's governance lacks clarity on this point.
Hector's departure highlights how messy these half signals can get, and if I were him, I'd also want to see an unambiguous stance on Rust — otherwise, it's not worth investing the time just to beg that your code, no matter how well engineered, might be turned down by personal preference.
MacPaw lists Russian-developed software as a risk because the government can access your data at any time — this is self-hosted open-source software though.
The FSB can’t just access your local server with an arbitrary court order.
Therefore this doesn’t feel like a legitimate concern but more like Russophobia, which I understand but also think is utterly unasked for as I know first hand how much Russian developers are suffering from the stupidity of their government.