🚀 go-pugleaf

I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to claim that it is a bug in
the kernel if the kernel crashes just because some user consumed all
of a particular resource.

Bug #1: the user should not have been allowed to consume the entire
resource.  There should be a high-water mark for individual user use.
If the resource is something that the kernel also needs, there should
also be a high-water mark for total user use beyond which only the
kernel or privileged users can tread.  Disk space has the latter type
of high-water mark.

Bug #2: the kernel should not have crashed when the resource ran out.
It should have rejected the fatal attempt to get the resource.  If it
felt really nasty, it could have killed the process (which would have
freed things up quite nicely!).

Bug #3: it is a bug in the minds of `propeller heads' (to quote Steve
Jobs) that it is EVER anything other than a bug for a kernel to crash.
It may be a bug in the hardware.  It may be a bug in the software.  It
can be malicious physical damage (induced hardware bug).  But no
kernel should crash because of the actions of an unprivileged user
program.

Back in prehistoric days (before UNIX), we actually tried to make
operating systems that would not crash even with the most abusive user
programs running.  We succeeded, too.  It is embarassingly easy for an
unprivileged user to crash even so-called `secure' UNIX systems,
including in ways that cause filesystem damage.  This is an Achilles'
Heel, and one that should not be tolerated in a `UNIX for the masses'
system as NeXT claims to be.