Linux

11550 readers

540 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

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

cpx Introduced as a Faster, Modern Replacement for Linux cp (linuxiac.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by cm0002@digipres.cafe to c/linux@programming.dev

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As we all know, file copying on Linux has long relied on the classic cp command, which remains reliable but offers little feedback and limited control over long or complex operations.

To address this, a promising new Rust-based command-line tool called cpx emerge, designed as an alternative rather than a replacement, that approaches the same task with a focus on performance, visibility, and configurability.

It targets scenarios where large directory trees, interrupted transfers, or the need for detailed progress reporting make standard tools less convenient to use. The project is currently Linux-only and leverages modern kernel features to improve copy throughput and reliability.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)

New Linux util.

looks inside

Non-copyleft license

I appreciate that it's not trying to replace cp but the lack of copyleft is always disconcerting.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 9 points 1 day ago

What's the risk here though, a company like Amazon makes a closed source version of it?

If it was a file format library, or something like a web server I'd get it. But stuff like cp are effectively just userspace wrappers around kernel APIs.

[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

yeah, like, supposedly it can be hard to use GPL with some rust dependencies, but the MPL is right there as a decent compromise.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I like and use rust, and I actively try to use permissive licenses for libraries and copy left for binaries. Just makes sense in my head.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 hours ago

I like and use rust, and I actively try to use permissive licenses for libraries and copy left for binaries. Just makes sense in my head.

I always find choosing a license confusing.

If you're up for it, I would love to read why you use this guideline.

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how can it be hard? permissive licenses are compatible to the GPL, the opposite not though

[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Static linking makes things difficult. I'm not sure what the details are, that's just what I've heard from Rust developers.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Because of static linking, a single GPL dependency turns the entire resulting binary into a GPL licensed one, so yeah just use something like the MPL in that case (Or EUPL, which I hear is similar)

LGPL has the same issue, since it only provides an exception for dynamic linking. But honestly that's all an issue for lawyers and judges to sort out (I bet you could win in court with an argument that dynamically linking to GPL is actually fine).