On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:51:43PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:

[cut]

>     Nobody supervises pid1, OK? So why would the supervisor need to be
> supervised? It is supposed to be rock solid. Note that it can be barely
> relaunched by sysvinit in the same way as getty.

>

Yep, but if a supervisor dies, all his children will be orphaned, and
even if init respawns the supervisor, this might not imply that all
the supervisor's children are respawn :)

I personally don't care at all about supervision systems, since I find
them completely useless in most of the common applications. I have
written a couple of custom ones, back in the days, but just for really
mission-critical stuff, where a process failing to do something meant
potentially damaging costly devices. And in that case the most logical
thing to do was to have part of the supervision managed by pid1.

But I am sure that 99.9999% of the users do not need supervisors in
99.9999% of the cases...

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  ]