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  ]