Yes, but now we're discussing only those that practically matter to more than 5 people today.
Plus the point was to talk about safe systems programming languages in general.
Or should we ignore history just because UNIX won on the server?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
Of course we can play semantic games about the use of UNIX word, and GNU/Linux not sharing any code from either BSD or AT&T linage, it doesn't make it any less UNIX.
Had Linux not copied UNIX, and provided a playground for UNIX vendors kind of outsource their development costs, it would have turned out to yet another hobby OS.
What Linux (and NT POSIX to certain degree) allowed, was to move the existing investment in software from hodge-podge of mutually incompatible, but expensive UNIX systems, to somewhere else.
Starting by wanting to copy Minix, an educational OS that copied UNIX, getting the GNU tools on board (which goal was to copy UNIX), kernel architecture, device drivers subsystems, userland, culture, ....
My old stack of Linux Journal editions at home are pretty clear what the ongoing story was.
If NT was a copy of anything, it was VMS given Dave Cutler's contribution to its design.
In those languages you have "Logic errors" to debug, in C and its direct descendants you have "Logic errors" + "UB errors" + "Memory corruption errors" to debug.
Also having the use of unsafe explicit in the type system, means that it is relatively easy to track down where such issues might occur, whereas in C every line of code can be a source of problems, depending on which compiler and flags are being used.
Again, this applies to all memory safe system programming language, not just Rust.
EDIT: Fixed the NEWP reference, as ESPOL came first and NEWP only replaced it in 1976.