It's OK, but it's a lot like the old "programmers with enough discipline can use footguns safely" argument.
This works pretty well in practise, and is quite similar to Erlang's monitor model. It's verbose and undesirable to handle _all_ exceptional cases in a distributed system explicitly via checked exceptions, and using monitors to catch exceptions that we're not expecting and do a process kill/log/restart is a good model in my mind.
OCaml gives the language flexibility to migrate to this as well, which is nice (since, as you note, we'll never get all the third-party code we depend on to be exception-free, and nor do I think that is a desirable goal). Core and Async from Jane Street also exhibit this split: Core tends to use On_error to explicitly handle errors, and Async (being used for distributed programming) instead adopts a "raise-exception-and-catch-it-in-a-monitor" model. Theres more on that in the Async chapter in RWO: https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/concurrent-programming...