The blog was a good read. I agree with acconsta that the description doesn't seem to utilize Rust's better attributes. Plus, that it's "starting to look like Linux" (author) may or may not be good. I'd look at Wirth's Oberon or A2 Bluebottle for a simpler start: type-safe, memory-safe (mostly), GC'd OS with good documentation, source available, and a simplicity focus for easy re-implementation. Rust, in theory, can do whatever it did and faster.<p>Additionally, if doing clean-slate, might be worth looking into alternative models for constructing or securing OS's. EROS security OS, SPIN OS's type-safe linking for acceleration, Minix 3's reliability scheme, JX OS's architecture, Microsoft's verified VerveOS scheme, maybe even Amoeba distributed OS just for kicks to see what it could do today. Lot of stuff that might be better than Linux model with a Rust implementation in terms of reliability, security, extensibility, or developer productivity.<p>Just a thought for Redox author or someone else wanting to try an OS in Rust. However, best thing to come out of Redox project, imho, isn't the OS so much as this article:<p><a href="https://redox-os.org/index.php?controller=post&action=view&id_post=5" rel="nofollow">https://redox-os.org/index.php?controller=post&action=view&i...</a><p>Great write-up on an equally great strategy of developing with hardware that's well-supported by both native OS's and virtualization. That's worth copying and expanding in other projects. Maybe worth a dedicated list like the HCL's where there's a list of computer builds that are easiest to develop on with or without virtualization. Or list it one piece of hardware at a time.