Every week or so there seems to be drama about some old dude shouting about how rust in the Linux kernel is bad. Given all the open hostility, is there easier way for R4L to continue their work?
Every week or so there seems to be drama about some old dude shouting about how rust in the Linux kernel is bad. Given all the open hostility, is there easier way for R4L to continue their work?
You say it’s “needless” complexity. But that’s what’s up for debate, and most people, including Linus seem to disagree with you.
It’s not a matter of whether Rust is demonstrably superior and more secure, that it is seems to be the common understanding and agreement.
A new project matching reasonable Kernel feature-parity would be too much effort. It’s unrealistic.
The value is in moving the Kernel itself into a safer space and tool-space.
The idea that a technically superior solution would naturally supplant an earlier one with a huge market penetration and stability is wishful thinking. We see it in many areas. Without significant issues people at large will stay with what they know and what is popular.