Comments by "Guillaume" (@joseoncrack) on "Rust Compiler Not Stable Enough for Linux Kernel Development" video.

They actually have their own kernel (Redox). Interestingly, it looks like a majority of the more vocal Rust promoters don't care about it one bit. First level of analysis of that would tell us that they care more about trying to "fix" existing software than creating new software. You know, like some kind of "savior" complex. Second level may indeed suggest that the underlying intent is to destroy Linux or whatever else they "convert" to Rust. I don't know. That may or may not be intentional, but I sure would be extra wary of the major investors behind Rust. Just have a look and tell me if that sounds "trustworthy".
17
For sure. One obvious point is indeed that if there are enough Rust devs in the Linux project, their "code of conduct" will prevail and Linus absolutely doesn't fit it. So he would get kicked out one way or another, and I'm sure that's their goal.
11
Rust is supposed to be about 30% of Firefox's code base now, according to Mozilla and IIRC, which is nearly as much as C++, so supposedly there's now as much Rust as there is C++ in Firefox. (I didn't check.) As a long-time user of Firefox, I didn't notice any significant change in stability or security. All I see is that it gobbles up even more RAM than it used to. And Firefox is a dying browser. (I still use it because I don't want Chrome cra p.) Can they call that success, you tell me.
6
But you have blue hair, don't you?😅
3
MS is also pushing it. Wasn't the lead Rust dev for the Linux kernel a MS employee, or I missed something? Anyway, until it gets a formal specification that doesn't change every month, it's a dead end IMHO.
2
@Mavendow Nice one. To me, the fact there isn't a definitive, approved specification nor any working third-party compiler is a major problem per se, but you're putting it in a light that makes it a bit clearer and also explains why MS is so interested in that.
2
@Acetyl53 Yep, interesting.
1
Kinda yes.😅
1