Linux vs GNU/Linux PART 2#

This is controversial continuation of my article:

Linux vs GNU/Linux.

Read that first...

So I ended up stating that GNU/Linux is forced upon us by copylefty zealots and my preference is just to say: Linux

But...


Times are changing#

Did you hear about rust?

Haven't you noticed any of those very enthusiastic (read: fanatic) rust programmers with a weird profile picture and flaming desire to rewrite everything in the only sacred language of rust?

I did notice and so did the industry:

How Furries Came to Rule the Tech Industry - Business Insider

What is my point here?

This: Rewriting essential Linux packages in Rust

Like I said, times are changing, the age of ensh!ttification 💩 is already upon us and when furries, I mean rustaceans, are invading Linux spaces and they want to rewrite rock-solid, battle-tested GNU core utilities (written in venerated C) for very dubious and unconvincing reasons (read the article and this) then they as well can demand to call this new system:

cargo/Linux

Rust does not support near as much platforms as C and by extension Linux... So, what does it mean? Linux will start dropping architectures?

Debian supports a lot more processor architectures – seven officially, and another 11 maintained ports – than Rust does.

I agree with this sentiment:

Rust doesn’t belong in the Linux kernel; it’s all about ideology

and this:

The problem with Rust


I want stainless/Linux!#

Can't the furries just make their own rustednix and stop infecting already established, stable and healthy projects???

Rust is a disease of the metal...

Rust-lang is a disease of Linux kernel...

(Oh, btw, you can vibe-rust Linux now...)

Maybe I want to distance myself from all of this. Maybe calling my system GNU/Linux is not so bad after all...

Call me contrarian if you must...

Perhaps one day Linux will be fully rusted and on that day I will probably say:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

P.S. I don't hate on rust per say - just the community surrounding it... I wrote more on that: Cult of Rust