[mustache_kimono]

> Entirely untrue. It may happen, but there is zero consensus to port Linux to rust. Not even the tiniest bit.

... But I did not say there was a consensus to port Linux to Rust? I'm sorry you misunderstood.

Now, why would Linux want to lay claim to being 'the Rust kernel' and how is that different than Linux being rewritten in Rust? I believe that there are many reasons why Linus chose to give Rust for Linux a chance. I believe at least one of those reasons is mindshare. If Linux chose not to experiment with Rust drivers, then that mindshare might go somewhere else.

>> Ubuntu wants to lay claim to "the Rust distribution"

Notice, Ubuntu is doing a similar thing. Canonical isn't porting all of Ubuntu to Rust. It is picking and choosing bits which they can, and would like, to move to Rust. Why? Probably for similar reasons. They want to seen as friendly to the Rust mindshare.

[b112]

Now, why would Linux want to lay claim to being 'the Rust kernel' and how is that different than Linux being rewritten in Rust?

This isn't a thing. Linux isn't laying claim to any such assertion.

If you want to know Linus's reasons, then read the LKML. He's quite open in all of his thoughts in this regard, and it has nothing to do with labeling Linux 'the Rust kernel'.

I don't know if this is some weird sort of advocacy, or you're just listening to a lot of over the top rust people, but nothing you're saying here is real.

[mustache_kimono]

>> ... I believe that there are many reasons why Linus chose to give Rust for Linux a chance. I believe at least one of those reasons is mindshare. If Linux chose not to experiment with Rust drivers, then that mindshare might go somewhere else.

Again, very sorry you misunderstood me. However, I am now pretty certain one of your difficulties is that you stop short of reading my next sentence, and then my next sentence after that. See my quoted comments above. I made very clear these are strictly my beliefs.

> If you want to know Linus's reasons, the read the LKML.

Perhaps when I said "I believe" I was being too subtle about what "my beliefs" are or what "beliefs" mean.

I hope you would agree -- just because one has expressed certain technical reasons/desires does not mean that there were not any unexpressed social reasons/desires, or what philosophers also call "higher order volitions" (long term volitions, or volitions about volitions), for one's actions.

Now -- I do not know but I do believe there may be social reasons for Rust being adopted in the Linux kernel, because I have read the LKML and I have reasoned about why Linux is experimenting with Rust drivers from things Linus and others have said.

Feel free to disagree, of course, but, in the future, please make more of an effort to avoid mischaracterizing me again.

[b112]

Now, why would Linux want to lay claim to being 'the Rust kernel' and how is that different than Linux being rewritten in Rust

Drop the "mischaracterising" routine. You're asserting specific things, so expect to get challenged when they're nonsense.

[mustache_kimono]

> Drop the "mischaracterising" routine. You're asserting specific things, so expect to get challenged when they're nonsense.

If I said "Coca Cola wants to lay claim to being the best cola soda in the world", I'm sure you would also say to me: "Patently untrue. Where exactly in Coca Cola's public statements are we to find that statement?!", instead of, perhaps reflecting, and asking yourself -- is that a reasonable belief for one to hold, given Coca Cola's marketing?

If I am not conforming to your expectations, perhaps it is because your expectations that need a reset.

[b112]

Ubuntu wants to lay claim to "the Rust distribution" and it's hard to blame them when Linux wants to lay claim to "the Rust kernel".

You stated this as fact, as an active statement and goal. It isn't. At all. It's made up fantasy.

Trying to reframe things after, by changing that statement into "oh, that's just an idea I had!" and then blaming others, is invalid and dishonest.

You seem to want to blame others for your made up, untrue statements being challenged. Give it a rest. Your attempts to blame shift will gain no traction here.

You stated something as fact that is not. You were wrong to do so. You are wrong to blame me for pointing it out. You are wrong to continue complaining.

You are wrong.

Clear?

[mustache_kimono]

> You stated something as fact that is not. You were wrong to do so. You are wrong to blame me for pointing it out. You are wrong to continue complaining. You are wrong. Clear?

Ugh. Well, I suppose it must seem very unfair to live a life without the benefit of figurative language and/or subtextual meaning. Know that I'm praying for a cure.

Good luck sir or ma'am!