> I hope this philosophy do not reach the Linux kernel. Well, I hope it does. Albeit it almost certainly will not, because Linus is opposed to it. But ever sin

> I hope this philosophy do not reach the Linux kernel. Well, I hope it does. Albeit it almost certainly will not, because Linus is opposed to it. But ever since I read Joe Duffy's blog posts on the Midori research project at MS, I have been convinced that using panics leads to increased reliability, not decreased. From his blog[1]: "Given that bugs are inherently not recoverable, we made no attempt to try. All bugs detected at runtime caused something called abandonment, which was Midori’s term for something otherwise known as “fail-fast”." And: "Abandonment, and the degree to which we used it, was in my opinion our biggest and most successful bet with the Error Model. We found bugs early and often, where they are easiest to diagnose and fix." I think that the Midori team's work shows that a practice of "there's a bug, stop everything" leads to more reliable software. Sure, there's an initial period of pain where you're fixing a ton of bugs as they cause the software to panic. But you reap the rewards of that effort. I don't think Linux will ever move towards a model like this, but I think it would be beneficial in the end if they did. 1: https://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/#bugs-arent-recoverable-errors https://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/#bugs-ar...