> Warp, while excellent, requires individual approval for each command—there’s no equivalent to Claude’s “dangerous mode” where you can grant blanket execution trust.

That’s a lie. I simply added “.*” to the whitelist. It’s a regex.

The frustration seems justified.

Spending significant time adapting core kernel code or developing a safe Rust abstraction for DMA, only to be summarily shut down by a single gatekeeper who cites "not wanting multiple languages" is demotivating. It's especially incongruent given that others have championed Rust in the kernel, and Linux has begun hosting Rust modules.

If the project leadership — i.e. Linus — truly wants Rust integrated, that stance needs to be firmly established as policy rather than left up to maintainers who can veto work they personally dislike. Otherwise, contributors end up in a limbo where they invest weeks or months, navigate the intricacies of the kernel's development model, and then find out a single personality is enough to block them. Even if that personality has valid technical reasons, the lack of a centralized, consistent direction on Rust's role causes friction.

Hector's decision to leave is understandable: either you have an official green light to push Rust forward or you don't. Half measures invite exactly this kind of conflict. And expecting one massive rewrite or an all‐encompassing patch is unrealistic. Integration into something as large and historically C‐centric as Linux must be iterative and carefully built out. If one top‐level developer says "no Rust", while others push "Rust for safety", that is a sign that the project's governance lacks clarity on this point.

Hector's departure highlights how messy these half signals can get, and if I were him, I'd also want to see an unambiguous stance on Rust — otherwise, it's not worth investing the time just to beg that your code, no matter how well engineered, might be turned down by personal preference.

You should explicitly mention that this is your blog post, and that this is a "members-only" post?

Or maybe, just maybe, this is tax evasion?

Surely, the loss of some user metadata is a catastrophe on par with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps next time, the Internet Archive should consult their vast army of paid engineers and their bottomless coffers to ensure such a calamity never befalls humanity again. After all, what's the point of preserving vast swathes of human knowledge and culture if one can't access their personal bookmarks from 2007?