> But they don't want to be writing file systems; instead, the only goal that matters to them is getting to the heart of the most popular OS, so as to secure some longterm success.
Wrong final word: security. In the war against remote exploits, harden the most widely used target first.
Rust only exists because getting people to reliably and consistently write secure C++ proved impossible.
(yes I know C++ is a much larger and more complicated language than C)
The only people to "hate" on Linux are the Rust community; in fact, they genuinely DESPISE the Linux maintainers for allowing themselves to be so brazenly exploited over the years. This is akin to how communists despise the workers.
Now, as for me: I respect Rust, not hate it, and only sympathise / pity the wider Rust movement. I believe their resources are much better spent someplace else: NOT bickering over decades-old operating systems and getting into the other people's codebases (this is what pleading for "common abstractions" is, really.) Had they learnt to stop competing for popularity and recognition, they would be very successful in validating the borrowing hypothesis. The conviction is not there: had there been conviction, heart, and commitment, they wouldn't bother with old codebases, and would instead make something special.
P.S. I don't require hate to be superior, my nature is sufficient to that end.
Wrong final word: security. In the war against remote exploits, harden the most widely used target first.
Rust only exists because getting people to reliably and consistently write secure C++ proved impossible.
(yes I know C++ is a much larger and more complicated language than C)