The benefit also isn’t as big as you might expect. Most of Linux’s recently found security vulnerabilities were due to ToC/ToU bugs. Fil-C would not magically fix these problems.
It would sometimes be a good trade off, for some users. But I don’t think many regular users would choose to pay this cost.
If you’re using SeL4, userland processes are already strictly sandboxed. There’s still some benefit to Fil-C, since the added memory safety would make it much more difficult to take over a process. But the blast radius of a compromised program in SeL4 is much smaller because of the capability model.
This is a myth that seems to never die. OS kernels can and have been written in GC languages. Watch the video maybe? The whole presentation was running on a distro fully compiled with FillC.
Ok, I stand corrected: only the kernel userland was compiled with Fil-C.
However, I don't see why the full Linux kernel could not be compiled with Fil-C. It would be nice if Fil himself could explain what limitations there are, but the documentation does not list missing C/C++ features as far as I know, it only says it's "fanatically compatible" which I take to mean mostly everything should work?!
But to my point in general, here's a osdev.org wiki explaining how high level languages can and have been used for OS development (with the caveat that some Assembly code is required, which I believe is also true of kernels written in C): https://wiki.osdev.org/Languages