When people say "safe" there's a pretty precise meaning and it's not this.
Yes, anyone who believes rust is 100% "safe" (by any definition) is wrong. That's not something you learn in Kindergarten though, it's actually about understanding that Rice's Theorem is a generalization of the Halting Problem.
> o this is something that I really need the Rust people to understand. That whole reality of "safe" not being some absolute thing
The irony of Linus lecturing anyone on safety lol anyway "the Rust people" know this already, when they say "safe" they mean "memory safe" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_safety
Anyway, dumb shit like this is why I've always been quietly dreading Rust in the kernel.
a) The kernel will never be safe software because the mainline developers don't want it to be or even know what safe means
b) It just invites more posts like this and puts Rust closer to one of the most annoying software communities
> Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.
Agreed on this point. I was very interested in kernel dev earlier in my career until I actually started to engage with it.
You aren't safe on the FOB, in your car, in your barracks, or in your house. There are only degrees of safety. Very wise almost globally applicable words.
Sure but people use this logic to justify no safety. Find me a marine a that goes into war totally naked.