Well, that's funny. Considering all the comments I have written for this submission.
First of all, most of the arguments I'd make is already addressed by lelanthran. Do I need to write the same things over and over? It's bad etiquette to write the same things said by someone else. This is why we have the voting mechanism here.
So, since you insist, let me reiterate the same thing.
No I don't refuse to use C, because most of the GPL software which is enabling everything we do today is written in C or a C-descendant language. However, as I write everywhere, I refuse to use Rust because of two reasons:
1- LLVM only for now (I don't use any language which doesn't have a compiler in GCC)
2- Rust's apparent rewrite in rust, in MIT, replace the thing and beat it with a club if it refuses to die attitude.
For reference, uutils and sister projects use "drop-in-replacement" and "completely replace" leisurely, signaling their clear intentions to forcefully replace GPL code with more permissive, business-friendly bits.
I tend to reluctantly accept Rust in the Kernel since gccrs is in the works and progressing steadily, and Rust guys are somewhat forced to write a proper reference for their language and back it with proper PLT, since it's a hard requirement if you want your programming language to be a long-living, dependable one.
Similarly, you use words like courage and non-sequitur leisurely. I'm not sure it's fitting in this instance.
Acta, non verba.