On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: [cut]
> > Hi KatolaZ, > > The preceding paragraph represents a philosophy more than anything > else. It's the philosophy that your computer must never, ever, for any > reason ever become unresponsive. You share that philosophy with Laurent > Bercot, the developer of the s6 (and s6-rc) init systems. He built s6 > such that pid1 can always respawn more stuff: The supervisor is in PID1. > Hi Steve, please don't let me say things that I have not said. I don't share that philosophy, at all. To be precise, I have said that in 99.9999% of the cases supervision is just *useless*. I simply can't see the point for it. For those cases in which supervision *really* matters, and I mean, where a failing process means damage to device, people, experiments, buildings, etc. then the only sensible thing is to not use unix, at all, since it does not have a safe way of providing supervision. If you *must* to use unix for those critical tasks, then most of the supervision *has* to be done by pid1. The rest of your email has been cut out, since it was based on the assumptions that I actually need a supervisor, which is false, and that I need help to find a good one, which does not make sense since the former one is false :) HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ] _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
