Why take it off list? It's on topic. It's about the Linux kernel, for
gosh sakes.


SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com

Bruce Perens via Dng said on Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:09:38 -0700


>Please take this off the list.
>
>On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 4:12 AM Rainer Weikusat via Dng
><dng@???> wrote:
>>
>> Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
>> > Rainer Weikusat via Dng said on Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:29:15 +0100
>> >>Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
>> >
>> >>> Wait. Did I miss the notice of administrative mandation? Last I
>> >>> heard, Linus said kernel code could be written in EITHER C or
>> >>> Rust.
>> >>
>> >>This is from a LWN article from 12/13/2025 which paraphrased the
>> >>Linux DRM maintainer (David Arlie) as follows: [...] the subsystem
>> >>is only ""about a year away"" from disallowing new drivers written
>> >>in C and requiring the use of Rust.
>> >>
>> >>https://lwn.net/Articles/1050174/
>> >
>> > Well THAT'S interesting. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel
>> > about all that and the comments. The referenced article and
>> > comments seem to imply that the long term goal is a pure-Rust
>> > kernel and drivers.
>>
>> The long-term goal of the people pushing Rust is pushing Rust. One
>> could also call it 1970sd, as it's still supposed to sort out turf
>> wars of the 1970s. And to get rid of dynamic linking, obviously,
>> because that's this awful new-fangled 1980s invention which lets
>> user CHANGE (Gaaaaahhh!) running code and nobody hates change more
>> than those who want to force it on others.
>>
>> >>No idea if the link can be accessed w/o a subscription. This has
>> >>greatly reduced my enthusiasm for this language because it if was
>> >>really good for something and not just some people's
>> >>techno-partisan "true love", such mandates wouldn't be necessary.
>> >
>> > They'd be necessary if long term you want your kernel and drivers
>> > to be written in only one language. Until 5 years ago, you could
>> > only do Kernel/Driver work in C. Does that mean that C must be bad
>> > because if it weren't, peoples' "true love" would make such a
>> > mandate unnecessary?
>>
>> Some time in the 1990s, someone chose C as programming language for a
>> hobby project. It wasn't mandated by a bunch of solutions pushers
>> working for US megacorps. You have your history somewhat wrong.
>>
>> > Of course, more to your point, with an Ada-only kernel, the
>> > developers of the Rust compiler would have an insane amount of
>> > power.
>>
>> ,,, and on to one of those tiresome political arguments. Not. I
>> originally considered Rust and interesting language because they
>> actually had a new idea for memory management, despite piggy-backing
>> MUST GET RID OF DYNAMIC LINKING!!1 onto that dented my hopes
>> somewhat.
>>
>> The abovementioned makes it pretty clear that the very people pushing
>> Rust are convinced that it cannot successfully compete in a
>> marketplace of idead on merit.
>>
>> Hence, end of the story, insofar I'm concerned. They must know this
>> better than I do.
>>
>> NB: I will not participarte in any kind of "My programming language
>> is longer than your programming language!" discussion.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> Manage your subscription:
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng Archive:
>> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/list/dng.en.html
>
>
>
>--
>Bruce Perens K6BP
>_______________________________________________
>Dng mailing list
>Dng@???
>Manage your subscription:
>https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng Archive:
>https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/list/dng.en.html