> It’s completely possible that Rust’s compiler contains a backdoor... The only way to compile Rust’s compiler is using a binary package of the previous version released by the Rust Foundation.

this is interesting but idk if i get it. couldn't you compile it with a different rust implementation like https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc

This has one of the hallmark indicators of bad analysis: it leaves the reader to complete the author’s thoughts, assuming that we’ll reach the same bleak and conspiratorial conclusions as them.

Cases in point:

- The Rust Foundation has corporate sponsors. Have they, in fact, acted in a manner that should undermine our trust in Rust, the language?

- The Rust compiler could contain a backdoor. Does it, in fact, and what are the reasons we would have to believe that?

The first and last points are basically nonsense. The others are valid, more or less.

(1) The Rust Foundation was very carefully engineered to not have any influence on the technical direction of the language. Yes, corporations are backing it, someone needs to pay the bills. Yes, they expect to benefit from it. It's pretty clear how - they want to ensure Rust, which they heavily rely on, is continued to be developed.

(2) The Rust compiler does not contain a trusting trust backdoor. It's possible to bootstrap rustc from zero (the original OCaml compiler) or short-circuit with mrustc. This was done and the binaries were identical (yes, not every version was checked). The GCCRS compiler might not be useless, but it is far from being useful enough that the Rust community should shift resources towards it.

What can I say, I agree with the article's concerns. I think rewriting everything into a non-GPL License by large corporations can be viewed as a first step to locking down Linux in a manner as Cell Phones are now.

It's been over 10 years since Rust 1.0 was released, and C programmers still see it as a new fad. Yet, the same article mentions, but fails to connect the dots, that even the large slow-moving corporations bankrolling the foundation have already adopted Rust and are leaving C as fast as they can.

It's a typical C mindset that rewriting programs creates new bugs, because it takes years to "battle test" and shake bugs out of a C program. In my experience rewrites in Rust uncover latent bugs of C programs when they finally get checked lifetimes, useful type system, enforced error checking, etc.