Unless the Linux developer community at large requested Rust in the kernel, this is good news.
The rust guys were just asking for semantic information about the current C apis so they could try to encode them into the type system.
All they got in response to that were made up problems of them supposedly forcing everyone to adopt their religion, rust being too OOP or other nitpicks that had nothing to do with the issue the presenters were trying to talk about.
Nobody even answered their questions, people which obviously didn't even look at rust for more than an hour gave their opinion on why what they're doing is bad and destined to fail. It was rude, tone-deaf and not a single technically sound argument was actually made.
I love linux and I'm fine with the maintainers deciding to use C if they want to, but the behavior by the old guard here was actually appalling and reeks of deep insecurity and inability to communicate.
Since when is Rust a requirement to help Linux development? Only an utter idiot could think that such a big and successfully community would put any effort in addressing any issue that is not posed in their natural language!
If you want to introduce Rust into Linux, you learn C, you learn Linux, you add and maintain whatever you want.
It's not and it shouldn't be, but it is most definitely required if you want to criticize it's integration into the kernel due to its supposed flaws/merits in a "technical" discussion.
Nobody is forcing anyone to learn rust, the RiL folks are fine with maintaining bindings and handling the fallout of C API changes. They didn't even get to say that, because they were shouted at for asking a question.
> If you want to introduce Rust into Linux, you learn C, you learn Linux, you add and maintain whatever you want.
Which is basically exactly what the RiL community is doing. In the posted video you can see them TRYING their best to learn about the undocumented invariants of a C API and getting nothing but flak for it for completely made up reasons. I might be hard to understand, but many of the strongest advocates of rust know C well and are opposed to using it themselves for good reasons. The folks maintaining C API don't have to care much about the rust part, except maybe giving a friendly heads-up when they change API's they depend on, like you would in any kernel development work where you are impacting another subsystem.
Apparently this is too much to ask from some of these C grandpas.
While these guys have undoubtedly made great contributions to Linux and FOSS and I'll be forever thankful for that, some of their behavior towards the RiL community has been appalling and petty. They have been resistant to any sort of change, even if it does not impact them at all, are quick to criticize without any attempt at understanding the efforts and benefits of Rust integration or even making any technically coherent argument. Constructive criticism and open discussion is important, but it should be based on accurate information and a willingness to learn instead of knee-jerk reactions and reacting to people wanting to learn about the API of your subsystem with outright and unwarranted hostility.
I have not seen many of those in my close to 32 years of involvement with Linux. In the beginning of the project they did occur 'every now and then' but once Linux got past v1.2 or thereabouts they're about as rare as hen's teeth. If Rust ever becomes widespread enough for kernel developers to pick it up with ease it will be a welcome addition but until such a time I prefer for the project to remain C-focused so as not to close out a large fraction of the potential developer base. If that means that some 'competing' kernel gets written in Rust and takes over from Linux that'd be fine by me as well, may the best [1] kernel win.
Suggesting making a new kernel is just total FUD. This is a multi decade project. It's like saying to a person who want some legislation in their country to change "why not make your own country, may the best country win". It's just so far removed from reality I'm very surprised I have seen this argument more then once.
Linux started as a hobby project of a single student and just a few years later it was already possible to build a full-blown UNIX desktop system with Linux as kernel.
Why should that not be possible to replicate today? Especially with modern development tooling and a big and motivated language community?
What is missing is the user base! When Linus started his project, many people knew Unix in their professional life and were disappointed with what the market (M$) was proposing for the personal computer world.
Today, no such multitude is waiting for the next Linux.
Linux may not be perfect, but it's definitely good enough.
That doesn't even begin to touch on the problem that linux came at just the right time.
Replacing any substantial parts of the Linux project with Rust also would be multi-decade effort, most likely more effort than forking off a separate evolutionary branch (which is probably the most realistic option). Such forks happened all the time in the history of UNIX.
No one wants to replace substantial parts of the linux project with Rust. This is a straw man, and the same bad faith argument the set in their ways kernel greybeards are making. People just want to be able to write green field drivers in Rust.
As long as they are the majority of the kernel developers, their wish is what matters the most.
This problem is not expected to be solved by current maintainers. They're just asked to make room for the next generation. "It should hurt you like it hurt me" is not an acceptable response.
> Does the proverbial rust programmer who doesn't know C even exist?
I have seen enough Python or JS programmers learning Rust without having any working knowledge about C. Of course Rust is not an easy language to learn for them, as they have to deal with a concept of explicit memory and lifetime that have no equivalent in Python or JS, but otherwise I didn't see any complication specific to Rust.