If you spend time reading the article, you can agree or disagree with his choices, but he provides several reasons for why he chose to rewrite in Rust over after the initial project was written in C:
"At that moment, I decided to switch to Rust (my first project in this language), which represented several advantages:
- Restart the project from the beginning, using lessons learned from previous mistakes
- Be a bit more innovative than just writing a Linux-like kernel in C. After all, just use Linux at that point
- Use the safety of the Rust language to leverage some difficulty of kernel programming. Using Rust’s typing system allows to shift some responsibility over memory safety from the programmer to the compiler."
Unfortunately, your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation and distracts from the interesting project being presented.
Why? There are multiple kernel versons with different support. Android had and might still have their own kernel version, and I didn't notice anything bad. It's just another Unix implication.
I have trouble not reading this as "forks are bad", which seems to be missing the point of libre software a bit. Am I missing some nuance lost in the brevity of two sentences?
Forks are not inherently good or bad but can seriously muck up an ecosystem if they are not well-justified. Mucking up the Linux ecosystem would be BAD.
"At that moment, I decided to switch to Rust (my first project in this language), which represented several advantages:
- Restart the project from the beginning, using lessons learned from previous mistakes
- Be a bit more innovative than just writing a Linux-like kernel in C. After all, just use Linux at that point
- Use the safety of the Rust language to leverage some difficulty of kernel programming. Using Rust’s typing system allows to shift some responsibility over memory safety from the programmer to the compiler."
Unfortunately, your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation and distracts from the interesting project being presented.