On 18/04/2017 at 12:32, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>> And why should a program/daemon care if
>>> it has a monitor or not ?
>> Why should a car driver care if the traffic light has the red or the
>> green light turned on?
>> Why should a sysadmin care if the OS he uses runs systemd or not?
> This is a totally wrong assumption. Being a sysadmin is all about
> setting and implementing *policies*. And the choice between systemd or
> anything else is exactly a matter of policy. So yes, a sysadmin *must*
> care if the OS he/she uses runs systemd or anything else.

Which is exactly my point. I am not advocating in favor of systemd
any more than I'm advocating letting drivers ignore traffic lights. And
what I don't like of Karl Aspo's idea is that it takes any instrument of
policy checking and enforcing out of the monitor, which ends up not
being able to monitor anything, it becomes just a shell: fire and forget.
I was also been ironic on Aspo, as many times he can only counter
another person's ideas asking "What if <something> cannot be trusted?",
as if this constitutes a valid argument against being able to set
policies for the monitor to enforce on the daemons it runs. In this
case, asking "why should a program/daemon care if it has a monitor or
not ?" is moot, because that the daemon is aware or not that it was
launched by a monitor and if so by what monitor, does not change
anything about the monitor's functions and duties. The daemon doesn't
care if it's run by a monitor? The monitor is still there, and it does
care about the program. A driver does not care if the traffic light is
red or green? The street police does.


Alessandro