The problem of underfunding plagues many open source projects. I wonder whether the Linux kernel suffers from underfunding in comparison to its global reach. Although code reviews and technical discussions are working well, I argue that the testing infrastructure of the kernel is lacking. Severe bugs are discovered late, and they are discovered by developers that should not be exposed to that amount of breakage. Moreover, I feel that security issues do not receive enough resources. I argue that the cost of those bugs is vastly higher than the cost that it would take to setup a better quality assurance. With sufficient funding, the kernel might do all of the following: - Make serious efforts to rewrite code with a bad security track record, instead of only fixing security vulnerabilities on an ad hoc basis. - Although the kernel will always remain in C, make serious efforts to introduce a safe language for kernel modules and perhaps for some subsystems. - Build an efficient continuous integration (CI) infrastructure. - Run a fast subset of the CI tests as a gatekeeper for all patch sets. - Run strict CI tests to ensure that userspace compatibility does not break. - Run CI tests not only in virtual environments, but also on real hardware. - Run CI tests that aim to detect performance regressions. I realize that some companies are already running kernel testing infrastructure like this. However, the development process seems to either lack the resources or the willingness to build a better quality assurance?