There is nothing bad about(or worse) about using "unsafe" in Rust compared to say C.
Correct, nothing worse. But Rust has to be *better* than C at something for it to be a better choice, because without the memory safety guarantees, C is faster. C is also much better suited to tasks which impose structural order on byte buffers without moving data. Which happens a lot at the system programming level.
If you can write it with an efficient run time in Rust without using the "unsafe" keyword and without relying on a library that uses the "unsafe" keyword then you've generally identified a use case where Rust is a better choice than C. If you need the "unsafe" keyword or have to write convoluted code to work around its absence, C is likely still a better choice. The kernel has both use cases.
Proprietary service drops support for proprietary protocol..
First off, that's not even an article about Internet infrastructure, it's an article about open source software.
Second off, when you use open source software, you own the copies you're using. That's the whole point. If it breaks and the original author isn't around, you hire someone to fix it or replace it with different software. That's how it works. And all of the software licenses deemed open source are structured to make it continue to work that way, with or without the original authors.
"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths