I apologize for interrupting, and also make my presence known at the same time, as my level of technical expertise should restrict me to being a silent entry level student, but in all my searches I have not gotten a good answer. (introduction at the end)
The Question: As a newbie outsider I wonder, after following the discussion of supervision and tasks on stages (1,2,3), that there is a restrictive linear progression that prevents reversal. In terms of pid1 that I may not totally understand, is there a way that an admin can reduce the system back to pid1 and restart processes instead of taking the system down and restarting? If a glitch is found, usually it is corrected and we find it simple to just do a reboot. What if you can fix the problem and do it on the fly. The question would be why (or why not), and I am not sure I can answer it, but if you theoretically can do so, then can you also kill pid2 while pid10 is still running. With my limited vision I see stages as one-way check valves in a series of fluid linear flow. In reference to the 95% reliability model which I can understand, I believe systemd works on 50% reliability basis. If there is a thing it does well is to clean up the mess its own design constantly creates, without bothering the admin. It is like a wealthy home owner who eats chocolates throwing the wrappers on the floor while walking through the house and having servants cleaning up behind him. He is always in a clean house. The extremes being having the house sealed to prevent dust coming in, or clean up every week or two and let it breath some fresh air. I think the fallacy with supervision is if you try to anticipate anything that can possibly happen when you can't. Can the user without any admin privileges be allowed to compile and run software and have 100% of available resources to do so? How efficient is a system that mandates a cap on resources? ------ Introduction: I don't like to eavesdrop and just read/listen discussion without people realizing I am here too, so I am making my presence known. I run a blog sysdfree.wordpress.com and I have been introduced to s6 and runit in the past couple of years through using Obarun, Void, and Artix, and by reading a few articles by Steve Litt. I am fascinated that in the world of open and free software meritocracy is really low when compared to corporate budgets and marketing. My aim is not to write my own init system, not even hack the one I use, but find the reasons why would large corporate projects fund a mediocre system, and promote it, almost by force, while what is superior remains relatively unknown. I understand that there are merits in working quietly and nearly alone, but still. I have a hunch that control, of software design and users, may have something to do with the "source of funding". PS I promise to remain quiet and learn before I speak again.
