I think it seems just right. Languages these days are either controlled by volunteers or megacorps. Because linux is about freedom and is not aligned with megacorps, I think they'd prefer a volunteer-driven language like Rust or C++ rather than the corporate ones.

I'm not sure you can claim that Linux is about freedom. Linux is run by a bunch of corps and megacorps who are otherwise competing, not by volunteers.

Yeah I think if you want ideals and freedom you have to look elsewhere. It's not controlled by a single company, but it is controlled by a one digit number of them.

I’m not sure you can argue that Rust and C++ have anything like a similar story around being volunteer oriented, given the number of places that have C++ compiler groups that contribute papers / implementations.

C++ has been an industrial language from the early days, since it got adopted among C compiler vendors back in the 1980's.

Linux has a BDFL and a quasi-corporate structure that keeps all the incentives aligned. Rust has neither of those.

I think it's quite rare for linux developers to not do it on behalf of some company.

Weren't a bunch of modules deprecated recently as a consequence of intel layoffs?

> I think it's quite rare for linux developers to not do it on behalf of some company.

Corporate-sponsored contributions are probably the majority, but I don't think true volunteers are super-rare. But in both cases they're a "volunteer" from the perspective of the Linux leadership - they're contributing the changes that they want to make, they're not employees of Linux who can be directed to work on the things that that leadership thinks is important.

(And conversely it's the same with Rust - a lot of those volunteer contributors work for employers who want Rust to have some specific functionality, so they employ someone to work on that)

In the python forum you will get a ban if you dare to ask that contributors disclose if they are contributing on behalf of some company and which company is it.