News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linus Torvalds: “Do No Harm” by zzzcpan on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @07:56AM (#15756377)
A better way of course is not to halt on assertion, but to limit the scope of any potential problem in a such way, that an assertion could only crash a tiny isolated thing and trigger its restart, possibly not impacting availability whatsoever. You still get your sanity, but also get users happy with a rock solid thing that just works even in a presence of errors.

The idea is known as supervision trees.

Re:Linus Torvalds: “Do No Harm” by _asummers on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @10:36AM (#15757550)
Erlang VM works this way, if someone's looking for a program that does this in practice. They have the mantra "let it crash". Something higher than you is in a better position to handle your error and restart you to a known good state.
Re:Linus Torvalds: “Do No Harm” by Fnoord on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @08:59AM (#15756789)
I think a good tradeoff could be that with containers, the individual containers are hardened, whereas the kernel's host OS is not. The host OS doesn't do much except keeping the containers running.