I see your point, but in this case I feel OP was misinterpreting the situation

But that’s the thing where you are wrong. They clearly state they don’t want C developers to learn Rust. In the particular video posted he was saying “I want you to explain to me how this particular API works so that I can do it”

The concerns about who fixes what on a merge when the C code breaks Rust code are valid, but that’s easily fixed by gathering with the Rust developers, explaining the changes and letting them fix it.

Can you point out where I said that?

The issue is not agreeing, but behaving like an immature prick when arguing

Indeed :)

Isn’t Linux still Linux even though probably a lot of the original code is gone? Why would slowly rewriting it whole, or just parts, in Rust make it stop being Linux?

I agree with your views. But I have to give praise to Linus for bringing Rust into the kernel.

Yes I agree but the solution for a project so big and critical is not to fork. How do you maintain all of it while at the same time adding support to Rust?

The difference is that now you have a scope of where the memory unsafe code might be(unsafe keyword) and you look there instead of all the C code.

This is such a dumb take. For as much as I’d like to have a safer language in the kernel you need the current developers, the “big heads” at least because they have a lot of niche knowledge about their domains and how they implementation works (regardless of language) People shouldn’t take shit like this from the ext4 developer, but it doesn’t mean we should start vilifying all of them.

This guy’s concerns are real and valid but were expressed with the maturity of a lunatic child, but they are not all like this.

Better in what ways? Rust’s strong points are not to just make a program more stable, but more secure from a memory standpoint and I don’t think Linux keeps improving on that

I can’t understand Logseq, even though it seems appealing. I haven’t gone too deep yet but to me it feels weird that they say it’s simple and then their documentation is confusing and full of videos explaining how it works. That seems far from simple.

Well I have my Linux partition encrypted with a unique password. But I don’t dual boot anyway …

They are still different brands with different features and price points. The fact that a faulty part was detected on Bentley doesn’t 100% mean a Seat will have the same issues

Yes we need variety. Imagine if all cars were from the same brand …

It was my college experience. Didn’t use anything else. No issues at all

I don’t know enough about them but how much vendor lock-in is there usually? Could I use a distribution of my choosing, or even add an extra NIC?

That’s the info I’m looking for. I wasn’t considering I would need 2.5’’ instead of 3’', besides glueing is not great That idle power is awesome though and why I was looking into SFF

I don’t need much redundancy, as I have off-site backups and in case something goes wrong I don’t need to restore the files quickly

I mean I could go the DIY route but I’m guessing it’s going to be more expensive?