this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

Linux

10176 readers
596 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sga@piefed.social 20 points 1 month ago (11 children)

I do not like this attitude towards uutils. phoronix makes a very click baity title, and comments shit on uutils, rust and ubuntu.

last time it was "extremely slow" (17x), and by the time most people reported it, a pull request had been made and merged which brought the sha function within 2x of gnu version. not ideal, but definitely not reporting worthy.

then it was sort function can not sort big files, which came from a artificial benchmark of a 4 gigabyte file with single line all consisting of character 'a' (not sure if it was a or 0 or something, but that is not relevant). gnu version finished in ~1 sec, and the rust version could not. you can not sort a single line, it is already sorted. so there is some check which uutils is missing, which could be easily added, but no, we must shit on uutils and rust because they are trying.

In this case, some md5 errors happen, but apparently problematic part is not md5, but dd (actual bug report - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/makeself/+bug/2125535).

I am not saying uutils is a perfect project, but gnu coreutils are nearly 4 decades old, where as uutils are less than 1 decade (yes the project did not start last year). There are bugs which need to be ironed out, and testing it in a non lts distribution is the best way to do that.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed. Also, some of these “bugs” will just be differences in interpretation.

For example, the dd problem that prompted all this noise is that uutils was enforcing the full block parameter in slow pipe writes while GNU was not.

So, now uutils matches GNU and the “bug” is gone.

There will only be a limited number of these kinds of issues and they will be quickly harmonized. Mountains out of mole hills.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

For example, the dd problem that prompted all this noise is that uutils was enforcing the full block parameter in slow pipe writes while GNU was not.

So, now uutils matches GNU and the “bug” is gone.

No, the issue was a genuine bug:

The fullblock option is an input flag (iflag=fullblock) to ensure that dd will always read a full block's worth of data before writing it. Its absence means that dd only performs count reads and hence might read less than blocksize x count worth of data. That is according to the documentation for every other implementation I could find, with uutils currently lacking documentation, and there is nothing to suggest that dd might not write the data that it did read without fullblock.

Until recently it was also an extension to the POSIX standard, with none of tools that I am aware of behaving like uutils, but as of POSIX.1-2024 standard the option is described as follows (source):

iflags=fullblock
Perform as many reads as required to reach the full input block size or end of file, rather than acting on partial reads. If this operand is in effect, then the count= operand refers to the number of full input blocks rather than reads. The behavior is unspecified if iflags=fullblock is requested alongside the sync, block, or unblock conversions.

I can also not conceive of a situation in which you would want a program like dd to silent drop data in the middle of a stream, certainly not as the default behavior, so conditioning writes on this flag didn't make any sense in the first place

load more comments (9 replies)