Re: As I've said before ...
I think you're missing the point. Crashes are good, they're Rust's way of pointing out bugs in your code. C is nasty because unless you do something spectacular to cause a segment fault or similar, your code will run quite happily causing mayhem that you might learn abroad during development, or you might not.
Rust itself is still evolving, but is a very good systems language. It's pretty hard to code for, because it doesn't let you get away with mistakes. That's its strength. You write junk code, you're going to be told all about it straight away.
Unlike C, where bugs lie dormant for decades undiscovered.
If ISO standardises Rust, it will become the language of choice for low level stuff like kernels.
I'm a long time C programmer, I love it to bits, but Rust is the writing on the wall. The speed with which Redox has gone from nothing to a running desktop is hugely impressive. The fact that they could bash out a whole new kernel very quickly, and apparently it's pretty bomb proof already, shows that it's a language where you can concentrate on ideas instead of worrying about memory all the time.
Large C projects like Linux will be seen as just too demanding of resources. There's a lot of people spending a lot of time chasing down problems in Linux that simply don't exist if Rust was used instead.