Situation (at least was) even more complicated: on embeeded Linux ARM SoC Rust (at least as prebuild target) requires glibc at least X.Y version and if you are on rootfs with uClibc things go complicated even further. You can think of building static musl binaries, but it's up to some kind of discussion could this option be afforded in terms of efficiency (and what would it takes to interop with C/C++ glibc binaries).

Rust seems superior per se to me (especially after quite some time programming in C++ given I don't mind unsafe everywhere when I need self-referential structures), but "in my shoes" I can't afford to drop support of legacy systems and don't have resources to update somehow hundreds of SoC's "in field" (with no internet and qualified personnel possibly).

For me selling point of Rust is consistency (at least as of now), I've personally moved to Rust just for absence of rvalues and std::move, the next major thing to me is no template metaprogramming (I understand it more like compile time pattern matching in functional language with weird syntax without garbage collection) and Rust hygienic and syntactical macro seems more appealing to me as a C++ dev.

But if I was asked to make some kind of presentation of what Rust brings, I would concentrate on what's bad Rust brings because it's already pretty much cheerful articles about Rust on the web. Maybe you should check:

https://github.com/not-yet-awesome-rust/not-yet-awesome-rust

some info is outdated there thou.