> The companies actually paying for the kernel development want Rust. That's a matter of fact. This is news to me. Are there any actual grants or contracts tha

> The companies actually paying for the kernel development want Rust. That's a matter of fact. This is news to me. Are there any actual grants or contracts that stipulate this? Can you provide any links to that effect? > Just see who's sponsoring the Linux Foundation, and check what they said elsewhere about their long term commitment to Rust. Is it the same people at these corporations? Are you assuming companies with five or six figures of employees have a unified stance on this? Or anything? If there was such a commitment to Rust, why not pull funding and cut a check to Redox? Or shift funds gradually over time? This is a head-scratching statement. > The main sponsors would likely just fork Linux should Rust be removed again. This is an asinine take. Three decades and millions of lines of code will not be simply forked overnight. These are the kinds of veiled threats that need to stop, especially when attached to such delusional levels of toxic wishful thinking. Arguing in bad faith is destructive to the overall conversation.