> >>      Steve,

> >>      I like more and more this idea of separating the tasks:
> >>       - pid1 (sysvinit or whatever) performs one-shot startups and
> >> basic supervision (like for getty),
> >>       - services needing a sophisticated supervisor use a
> >> supervisor which is only a supervisor, not pid1,
> >>       - services which depend on conditions use specialized tools
> >> to wait for these conditions.

> > I admit this might seem like a stupid comment, at least at first
> > sight, but whenever you introduce a supervision system under unix
> > you most probably end up deciding that the supervision should be
> > delegated to pid1, since pid1 is the only process able to guarantee
> > that supervision will be working, whatever happens.  
>      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.