> you're going to use unsafe anyway ... you don't use unsafe / low level things for higher part of the OS
It seems as if you contradict yourself here. Or are you trying to suggest that Microsoft's bugs were confined to the "lower part of the OS"?
> so ...
So, what, exactly? Your point is not clear. Redox used Rust and held a challenge to find bugs in Redox -- which was succesful at uncovering bugs in Redox. Ergo, what? "memory bugs still exist when programming in Rust"? Or "We haven't completely extinguished this kind of bug, therefore we haven't improved over C." It sounds bogus when I try to guess at what you're implying, so please clarify.
The whole unsafe escape hatch was designed to imbue the flexibility required to cover the design scope required for system software. Don't fault Rust for adding it. Credit Rust for Redox's stability after they did this challenge.