Anyway, the point is: if it works, then it’s good. Rust does not make Linux worse. If anything, it makes it better because it makes it more accessible to programmers who know Rust but not C. And that’s a good thing. It ensures the Linux kernel will be around longer than whomever ends up being the last C developer.

Nobody is going to rewrite the entire kernel in rust. Parts of it are still written in assembler. It’s well over 30 million lines of code, 60% of it drivers. You can’t just go and rewrite that in a different language, hell it doesn’t even compile on the wrong C compiler version. You would need access to the hardware and run tests for every module you change at least or risk breaking stuff in production.

C programmers will always be around since they are necessary to keep the old code running on newer hardware. There are thousands of companies relying on the Linux and BSD kernels, for example every network router, switch etc.

I have nothing against rust, but there is always a danger of having too many programming languages used in the same project, especially if a error in one language can break something in a module written in the other. That’s just a nasty complications, especially for a time critical project like the kernel.