Kodak's demise is a little overstated just because they have been reorganized several times; and 'Kodak' is sort of the dump entity. There are still a variety of applications for being competent at thin film chemistry, including semiconductor fabrication, just not so much making 35mm film. So Eastman Chemical got most of that. And some of their medical and otherwise higher-end optics and imaging stuff also got spun off, with the business of not terribly optically interesting cameras under heavy threat from apathy and cellphones left at Kodak proper.

They certainly didn't do desperately well; or they'd probably be somewhere more along the lines of Sony in terms of 'who builds CCDs worth disclosing the provider of?'; but the reorgs appear to have been aimed at separating the more viable business units from the liabilities. Probably so the latter could be tied to the pension plan.

The US is a nation of yesterday. It is in a slow descent to the 2nd and in some aspect the 3rd world. And this has been a long time in the making. Arrogance on that level will get you left behind, eventually.

Nice FUD you have there. Makes you part of the problem.

... can keep the ICE going. Does not look good for these cretins. At some time we will just slap the real costs on fossile fuels and then this crappy historic tech will die.

Oh, look, somebody needed "research" to justify their management decisions ...

Observable evidence. I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept?

It could've been done... with one of these babies.

Marketing. There is no sane reason to reimplement things in Rust, unless they have been a constant security problem. For example, reimplementing Bind would probably a good idea with their constant crap. But you can just move to alternatives. Same for Sendmail, but Postfix is an excellent replacement.

Reimplementing commandline-tools that are not a problem is pure insanity.

It very much does not. And Rust is not "safe by design" either, that is nonsense. It can prevent or reduce some forms of problems, mostly from the areas of memory safety and effects like race-conditions. But look at PHP, which is completely memory safe and still one of the worst source of security problems.

What Rust does is to allow actually competent secure code developers to focus more on the remaining problems, of which there are many.

What Rust lacks to be taken fully serious is a specification. No, an implementation can never replace a specification, that idea is amateur-level.

Actually, that would be a lie by misdirection, because the actual competition are renewables and storage and there nuclear does not look too good. Not that the nuclear fanatics are above lying ...

These people operate on the same level as clueless major software makers like Cloudstrike, Microsoft, etc. Hence while this could be done a lot better and competently, these people just do not have the skills.

Some still do that. And some send ransomware threats when there is no attack. Apparently the both approaches continue to work to some degree.

Otherwise they would be able to make more money (as soon as you take risk-costs into account) in a regular job.

I agree on that. But I do not think the tool choice plays a role in whether people take something seriously or not. Some people do understand risk and risk management, but most simply do not and nothing will change that. The benefit of Rust is that it is likely quite a bit harder to learn that C and that selects the people for those that actually want to do this right and are willing to invest significant effort and bring significant talent to the table. And that may make a significant difference. In any case, I do not think it will make things worse. But we will find out.

Good question. Probably not. Lets hope the crashing starts in 2026, or the damage will be even more massive.