I feel dumbfounded. All I've ever heard from rust users, is the equivalent of football fans running up, waving pendants in my face and screaming. So much so, that everything else said seems like the wild fantasies of "our team gonna win".

Then things like this appear:

https://www.phoronix.com/news/First-Linux-Rust-CVE

And I'm all warm and feeling schadenfreude.

To hear "yes, it's safer" and yet not "everyone on the planet not using rust is a moron!!!", is a nice change.

Frankly, the whole cargo side of rust has the same issues that node has, and that's silly beyond comprehension. Memory safe is almost a non-concern, compared to installing random, unvetted stuff. Cargo vet seems barely helpful here.

I'd want any language caring about security and code safety, to have a human audit every single diff, on every single package, and host those specific crates on locked down servers.

No, I don't care about "but that will slow down development and change!". Security needs to be first and front.

And until the Rust community addresses this, and its requirement for 234234 packages, it's a toy.

And yes, it can be done. And no, it doesn't require money. Debian's been doing just this very thing for decades, on a far, far, far larger scale. Debian developers gatekeep. They package. They test and take bug reports on specific packages. This is a solved problem.

Caring about 'memory safe!' is grand, but ignoring the rest of the ecosystem is absurd.

Debian has been doing this for decades, yes, but it is largely a volunteer effort, and it's become a meme how slow Debian is to release things.

I've long desired this approach (backporting security fixes) to be commercialized instead of the always-up-to-date-even-if-incompatible push, and on top of Red Hat, Suse, Canonical (with LTS), nobody has been doing it for product teams until recently (Chainguard seems to be doing this).

But, if you ignore speed, you also fail: others will build less secure products and conquer the market, and your product has no future.

The real engineering trick is to be fast and build new things, which is why we need supply chain commoditized stewards (for a fee) that will solve this problem for you and others at scale!

> Debian has been doing this for decades, yes, but it is largely a volunteer effort, and it's become a meme how slow Debian is to release things.

which is a bit silly considering that if you want fast, most packages land in testing/unstable pretty quickly.

But then you as a consumer/user of Debian packages need to stay on top of things when they change in backwards-incompatible ways.

I believe the sweet spot is Debian-like stable as the base platform to build on top of, and then commercial-support in a similar way for any dependencies you must have more recent versions on top.

> But then you as a consumer/user of Debian packages need to stay on top of things when they change in backwards-incompatible ways.

If you need latest packages, you have to do it anyway.

> I believe the sweet spot is Debian-like stable as the base platform to build on top of, and then commercial-support in a similar way for any dependencies you must have more recent versions on top.

That if the company can build packages properly. Also too old OS deps sometimes do throw wrench in the works.

Tho frankly "latest Debian Testing" have far smaller chance breaking something than "latest piece of software that couldn't figure out how to upstream to Debian"

The difference is between staying on stable and cherry-picking the latest for what you really do need, and being on everything latest.

The latter has a huge maintenance burden, the former is the, as I said already, sweet spot. (And let's not talk about combining stable/testing, any machine I tried that on got into an non-upgradeable mess quickly)

I am not saying it is easy, which is exactly why I think it should be a commercial service that you pay for for it to actually survive.

  > supply chain commoditized stewards (for a fee)

I agree with this, but the open source licenses allow anyone who purchases a stewarded implementation to distribute it freely.

I would love to see a software distribution model in which we could pay for vetted libraries, from bodies that we trust, which would become FOSS after a time period - even a month would be fine.

There are flaws in my argument, but it is a safer option than the current normal practices.

When it is tailored to one customer, that dependency being maintained for you is probably a very particular version you care about. So while copylefted code you can always reshare, it's the timeliness and binary package archives that are where the value really is.

Not dismissing your point, but Looking at the article, it looks like it's in rust unsafe code. Which seems to me to be a point that the rest of the rust code is fine but the place where they turned off the static safety the language provides they got bit.

Hey! Can't I just enjoy my schadenfreude in peace?

I guess the takeaway is that, doubly so, trusting rust code to be memory safe, simply because it is rust isn't sensible. All its protections can simple be invalidated, and an end user would never know.

Um I doubt Debian maintainers look at every single line of code in the packages they maintain.

One might even call the rust community a “cargo cult”

It's hard to take a project seriously if it focuses so much on the language it's written in. As a user, I don't care. Show me the results (bug tracker with low rate of issues), that's what I care about. Whether you program in Rust or C or Java or assembly or PHP.

As a potential user of an open source project, I care a fair bit what language it is implemented in. As an open source project, I preffer projects in languages and ecosystems I am familair and comfortable with. I may need to fix bugs, add features, or otherwise make contributions back to the project, and thus I am more likely to pick a solution in a language I am comfortable with than in a language I am not as comfortable with, given my other needs and priorities are met.

The docs of it and the marketing is a bit of a mess, tho I'm just gonna blame that on culture barrier as the devs are chinese

I agree, although I’m guessing they’re measuring “most popular” as in “most beloved” and not as in “most used.” That’s the metric that StackOverflow puts out each year.

>Secure: RustFS is written in Rust, a memory-safe language, so it is 100% secure

[0]

qed

[0] https://docs.rustfs.com/installation/

Oh wow, they really wrote that. I love Rust but this is clown shit.

I agree that it is a bad idea to describe rust this way but they likely meant memory safety as used in https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2025/07/24/memory-safety.html . Meaning that shared mutable is thread unsafe, I am unsure about Java and JavaScript but I think that almost every language on the popular memory safe list fails this test.

Again the statement is probably still untrue and bad marketing, but I suspect this kind of reasoning was behind it

Of course Rust technically fails too since `unsafe` is a language feature

I don't have an issue with `unsafe` - Java has the mythical unsafe object, C# has it's own unsafe keyword, Python has ffi, etc. The title of that blog post - that there is no memory safety without thread safety - is not quite true and it acknowledges how Java, C#, and Go have strong memory safety while not forbidding races. Even the "break the language" framing seems like special pleading; I'd argue that Java permitting reading back a sheared long (64-bit) integer due to a data race does not break the language the same way writing to a totally unintended memory area or smashing the stack does, and that this distinction is useful. Java data races that cause actual exploitable vulnerabilities are very, very rare.

I am Elvin, from the RustFS team in the U.S.

Thanks for the reality check on our documentation. We realize that some of our phrasing sounded more like marketing hype than a technical spec. That wasn’t our intent, and we are currently refining our docs to be more precise and transparent.

A few points to clarify where we’re coming from: 1. The Technical Bet on Rust: Rust wasn’t a buzzword choice for us. We started this project two years ago with the belief that the concurrency and performance demands of modern storage—especially for AI-driven workloads—benefit from a foundation with predictable memory behavior, zero-cost abstractions, and no garbage collector. These properties matter when you care about determinism and tail latency. 2. Language Safety vs. System Design: We’re under no illusion that using a memory-safe language automatically makes a system “100% secure.” Rust gives us strong safety primitives, but the harder problems are still in distributed systems design, failure handling, and correctness under load. That’s where most of our engineering effort is focused. 3. Giving Back to the Ecosystem: We’re committed to the ecosystem we build on. RustFS is a sponsor of the Rust Foundation, and as we move toward a global, Apache 2.0 open-source model, we intend to contribute back in more concrete ways over time.

We know there’s still work to do on the polish side, and we genuinely appreciate the feedback. If you have specific questions about our implementation details or the S3 compatibility layer, I’m happy to dive into the technical details.