And it's a bad argument anyway. You're only good at memory management until the first bug takes down production.

Rust isn't a panacea and certainly has problems, but eliminating an entire class of potentially very dangerous bugs is a very good argument.

Note that Rust does not "solve" memory management for you, it just checks whether yours is memory safe. Initially you might rely on the borrow checker for those checks, but as you become more and more used to Rust you'll start to anticipate it and write code that already safisfies it. So ultimately you'll still learn how to safely deal with memory management, just in a different way.

Maybe this is the fork in the road for something new. These circumstances were kind of how GNU/Linux was born, after all.

Lol the out of memory error was a joke. A reference to that two people both trying to do the same thing will fill the heap since there’s unnecessary work.

I tried to make a code joke but it failed.

As far as what are they unwilling to release? Control. Ownership of any bit of the kernel they control

kernel maintainer Ted Ts'o, emphatically interjects: "Here's the thing: you're not going to force all of us to learn Rust."

Lina tried to push small fixes that would make the C code "more robust and the lifetime requirements sensible," but was blocked by the maintainer.

DeVault writes. "Every subsystem is a private fiefdom, subject to the whims of each one of Linux’s 1,700+ maintainers, almost all of whom have a dog in this race. It’s herding cats: introducing Rust effectively is one part coding work and ninety-nine parts political work – and it’s a lot of coding work."