zlacker

Linus' statement are applicable to the kernel only, and if we're using tube analogies, he was talking more about situations where the train is underway and something fails. The Rust way would be to panic, train stops in between stations and must be rebooted to continue. Linus was saying no, you carry on despite the error until you get to the next station. Much as the passengers in your story did.

>>pwinns+(OP)
> The Rust way would be to panic, train stops in between stations and must be rebooted to continue.

Which is safe. It's inconvenient, but it's safe. Failures of this sort do happen, electrical fires are probably the most extreme example. They're annoying, but nobody is at risk if you stop. Since the tube is in civilisation (even at the extreme ends of the London Underground which are outside London, like Chesham, this is hardly wilderness, you can probably see a house from where your train stopped if there aren't trees in the way) we can just walk away.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chesham_Tube_Station...

> Linus was saying no, you carry on despite the error until you get to the next station

Depending on the error the consequences of attempting to "carry on" may be fatal and it's appropriate that the decision to attempt this rests with a human, and isn't just the normal function of a machine determined to get there regardless.

>>tialar+34
Stopping a train in the tube between stations is not safe. You can't get off the train safely between stations. Most help can't reach a train stuck in a tube.

>>gmueck+3e
Trains can be, and sometimes are, evacuated in a tunnel. The front (and rear, these trains are symmetrical) can be opened, converting into steps for able-bodied passengers to walk down to the tunnel floor.

There's a video of passengers doing this for real in this 2016 news article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36716256

>>tialar+Vv
Note the electrified third rail in the photos. It's not safe to walk there before that rail is disconnected.