From the closing paragraph, I feel like he’s under the impression that Rust-advocating contributors are putting Rust’s interests (e.g. “legitimizing it” by getting it in the kernel) above the kernel itself.
If we're going to be serious about who is being toxic, it's definitely Linus in this thread. Guy makes first mistake (by a very broad interpretation of "mistake". Perhaps "misunderstanding"?). Linus goes nuclear. And while his reasoning is sound, his argumentation cycles between threats, bad-faith arguments, and just plain old yelling.
What some people don't understand is that the Linux kernel isn't 'led' in any meaningful sense. But I suppose some projects don't need actual leadership? I once was recommended a Metallica documentary, because "It's amusing to see what emotionally stunted 40-50 year olds who have never had anyone tell them 'No' since 18 will do." That's the Linus vibe -- somehow we've limped along to here. Seriously, read the rust/rust-lang issues/RFCs. Those people sound like grownups contrasted to this.
The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultimatum? It's crazy girlfriend/boyfriend material? It's ridiculous after one contributor tries something that Linus thinks won't work in the kernel. Ridiculous. Just say no.
The slander as well? "Rust’s community, in aggregate, have developed a reputation." And you know what? The C/C++/Zig/Nim/Haskell/Clojure communities have developed a reputation too, but, gosh, I don't talk about it because I know labeling groups isn't helpful/is completely non-technical.
What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread.
The nearest I see is:
If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other
requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work
together.
No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about
specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally
defined.
Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics
and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but
for now, this is an under-defined place in the language.
I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language.
Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.
You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.
> Rust's UB guarantees
Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.
I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!
> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?
You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...