> Rust in the kernel is still an experiment, you can't lead in a direction that doesn't exist. "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I c

> Rust in the kernel is still an experiment, you can't lead in a direction that doesn't exist. "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." > [B]ut it needs to be distilled down to something simpler with a stable ABI to be used for something like Linux. Why? I really not understanding a practical reason why that would be necessary. > Moreover, why be "afraid some other kernel will do to it what it did to Unix"? Wouldn't it be great if Linux could be replaced by something better? Why not pursue that direction? It's mostly a ridiculous alternative in the here and now. People use Linux, right now, although a fine thing to do. People want a memory safe language to write drivers and filesystems in the kernel, right now. It makes lots of sense to write use Rust in the Linux kernel, right now. So maybe? It still takes lots of work of make something like that happen? I'd love if the entire RfL team played hard ball, relicensed their contributions as MIT/ISC/BSD, and moved to FreeBSD or illumos or began contributing to RedoxOS, but I wouldn't expect anything new for awhile.