118

Oboi here we go 🙄

Ubuntu has managed to do away with GNU Core Utilities in its default stack. The last three holdouts, cp, mv and rm, have moved to uutils' coreutils; the Rust reimplementation Canonical has been feeding into the distro since 2025.

They had been held back from 26.04 LTS over flaws in the uutils versions. Everything else, from ls and cat to chmod and du, made that jump in earlier releases.

This change, while big, sits hidden away in an obscure mention in Canonical's work-in-progress release notes for Ubuntu 26.10.

It's been a long road

Canonical started oxidising Ubuntu last year, and Ubuntu 25.10 became the first release to ship coreutils as the default. That release also made sudo-rs the default privilege tool, replacing a command that had been in place for decades.

26.04 was the release where the plan did slow down quite a bit, as Canonical kept cp, mv, and rm on their GNU versions due to a bunch of TOCTOU issues that were blocking the full implementation.

These were caught during an audit, when Canonical commissioned Zellic for two rounds between December 2025 and March 2026, focusing on the most security-sensitive utilities first.

Across both rounds, Zellic raised 113 issues, and 44 of them were assigned CVEs. Canonical says the vast majority have been resolved.

Getting here has had its ups and downs, and the last stretch was not clean. In July, uutils cp went back into the archive and came straight out again after it broke live image builds.

The fix was quick; as the developers marked it "Critical," the fix went upstream, and the migration landed in time for 26.10. What changes for you?

When typing commands, nothing changes for you on the surface. uutils coreutils is designed to be a drop-in replacement for essential GNU tools, and the project treats any divergence from GNU as a bug, further pointing out that some options may still be missing or behave differently.

So if you prefer staying on the GNU version, you have the option to install the coreutils-from-gnu package that houses all the required components.

The next stage

Coreutils is one piece of a broader campaign. Earlier this year, Canonical became a Gold Sponsor of the Trifecta Tech Foundation, pitching in €40,000 a year to fund memory-safe system software.

Under this, their current target is ntpd-rs, a Rust rewrite of the tools Ubuntu uses to keep its clock in sync. While work is still ongoing, it has already arrived for testing.

Its transition to being default is targeted for Ubuntu 27.04.

What Canonical is gradually building up towards is the completion of their oxidation vision for Ubuntu, and it's not about blindly including new components. Rather, it looks like a measured approach that's being worked out a few steps at a time.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Azazel@lemmy.ml 82 points 1 day ago

As a developer I love rust but canonical can fuck all the way off with this shameless license laundering.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] mesamunefire@piefed.social 25 points 21 hours ago

Its not 1-1 so this is going to fry some bash scripts and install scripts. At work we had to stop using Ubuntu because of a couple of bad installs via this change. Debian is just as good so its fine.

I have no opinions on the rewrite, but I wish they made a flavor or something just for this.

[-] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 5 points 15 hours ago

I had a problem literally today because some script was relying on a particular behaviour of dirname that was handled differently between uutils and GNU. It's been fixed already in a newer version than the one I had, but it took me a long time to figure out what the heck was going on, because finding a missing expectation in a nested shell script is tough...

It was just mysteriously doing the wrong thing.

[-] ISO@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

If you're going to rely on shell scripts, you should stick to the built-in functionality of your shell as much as possible, as external commands can differ, or even be completely overridden, in random environments for a myriad of reasons.

For example, use ${var%/*} instead of $(dirname $var). Forking out a whole OS process for such minuscule tasks is stupid anyway.

This goes against la-la unix philosophy dreamy thoughts and beliefs, or portability fantasies. But it's the right thing to do in the real world. And gives you at least some level of control over expected behavior.

[-] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago

I would argue the entire point of shell scripts is to coordinate running external programs, that's what the shell is for, but I'm a dreamer.

If I was just going to use the built-ins I'd use Python or Ruby or something.

In this particular case I didn't write the shell script, I was just debugging it because it broke on my system when I was running something.

Also your implementation has a bug because dirname blah.png returns "." 😉

[-] ISO@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

Also your implementation has a bug because dirname blah.png returns “.” 😉

It wasn't meant as a 1-1 implementation, but fair enough.

I would argue that this helps my point. Because that's an ambiguity dirname doesn't help with. What if "bla.png" is, or expected to be, a dir?

And if you're going to test, are you going to use shell bult-ins or the test command from coreutils? And if you're calling test, are you calling it with the full path so you don't get a shell builtin anyway or not?

If I was just going to use the built-ins I’d use Python or Ruby or something.

Using a better language is absolutely the right thing to do for anything that is not trivial.

Python is a shit choice for another reason though. They don't know what backward compatibility means. So you may find your script broken in 2-3 years anyway. I don't know about Ruby.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago

if they claim to be posix compliant but aren't, then it's their bug, not their users'

[-] ISO@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

Parent mentioned that the supposed bug was already fixed, that's not the point.

And they target GNU compliance, not POSIX compliance. Which is hard mode, since if it was the latter, they could have just checked out the freebsd utils or whatever at will whenever they felt unsure about something.

[-] mesamunefire@piefed.social 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I remember it was a common problem between Mac os and Linux as well.

One of the first things I get brew to do.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 7 points 16 hours ago

So... Let's assume I don't go around reading licenses for fun.

Can anyone explain to me what the major differences are between MIT and GPL?

[-] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 25 points 15 hours ago

MIT: The recipient of this source code can do with it as they please. That may include building it, distributing it, modifying it, building and distributing those modifications, commercializing it, whatever.

GPL: The recipient of this software, including builds of it, is entitled to the source code that was used to build it. Anyone with the source code can modify it, share those modifications, make builds with it, etc, but you cannot restrict the rights of the recipients of your builds more than the terms you yourself received the source code under. So you can make changes and distribute builds of those changes, but users you distribute builds to are also entitled to your code including the changes you made.

AGPL: Same as GPL, except the recipients of this software also include users of the software, such as over a network. This was because with SaaS suddenly people were using software they hadn't "received", because it was running on someone else's computer and they only provided inputs and received outputs, so the licence was created to bring this back in line with the spirit of the GPL.

LGPL: You can use this library in your non-GPL code, and it doesn't "infect" your entire codebase by extending the entitlement of the source code outside the library to all users of your builds. It does still entitle users to the source code of the library itself though, especially if you've made changes to the code of that library.

People often talk about the GPL preventing commercial uses, but that's actually not true. You're allowed to sell GPL software. It's just a somewhat risky venture, because all users you sell software to also get all the source code. That means anyone can buy your software, request the source, and then immediately start competing with you by offering it themselves for free or cheaper or whatever. So it's allowed, but rarely works for very long unless you have a lot of good will in the community.

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago

Sure but there are lots of companies that don't provide source code for their GPL software. And nothing happens.

[-] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

Two additions:

  • some software is also sold under a separate license in addition to GPL, so you can choose if you want free open source or paid closed source (e.g. Qt has this model)
  • being in breach of license terms doesn't mean you're forced to do anything automatically: it means you can get sued and a judge might order you to do something (probably pay money) to heal the breach, or you can settle out of court (probably by paying money).
[-] sage_kase@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago

Damn dude, this is really articulate. Thanks.

[-] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago

MIT: I build my thing on top of your thing, it's my thing now. I sell it, you have no rights.

GPL: I build my thing on top of your thing and your license forces me to distribute my thing under the GPL, including the source code.

There are legitimate arguments for both. Sometimes it sucks when proprietary things get built on top of MIT code but sometimes it takes money for innovation, and in the realm of code the world often benefits anyway by virtue of copycats or distillation.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago

Most times innovation needs money, it takes public money to do so.

[-] somegeek@programming.dev 35 points 23 hours ago

screw this project and it's goal of corporate takover of a GPL project

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 15 hours ago

It's been a long road[...]

🎵🎶🎵

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 day ago

i don't really trust this

[-] provectus@lemmy.ml 11 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The corporate adoption on uutils already started.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/core-utils/overview

Windows is now using uutils for their coreutils. I want to see if Microsoft gives back anything to the project with that permissive license. Also, aren't canonical and Microsoft partners or something? I saw the Ubuntu wsl news.

[-] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago

This is dumb, I have to use osX for work and having coreutils be similar but not quite the same is a PITA, why would you inflict this on yourself to close a class of bugs that aren't really a huge concern for coreutils.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 22 hours ago

The problem with macOS is that they use BSD utils, which are lacking functionality from GNU utils. If anything, utils being pushover-licensed means that Apple would be more likely to replace their broken coreutils with uutils and you'd get more parity with the coreutils installed on most Linux systems.

And I say that as someone that despises pushover licenses, but this creates the probably that macOS utils won't suck someday.

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 hours ago

It's not just lacking features, the BSD versions have sometimes completely different parameters compared to the GNU coreutils to achieve the same thing.

[-] thenextguy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

So, they will have to continue to support feature for feature, bug for bug with coreutils and others forever? What's the endgame here?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
118 points (96.1% liked)

Linux

67603 readers
877 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS