On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 03:11:51PM +0200, karl@??? wrote:

[cut]

>
> > 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.
>
> If I can get a value from the kernel instead of from the process,
> I'd take the kernel value.
>
> Why do a process have to query the kernel to get a value and then
> sending it to a monitor over a communication link; why don't the
> monitor query the kernel itself, saving one step.
>

I genuinely don't understand why the kernel should know about the
internals of running processes, or get notified if a process is
"ready" to do whatever it is supposed to do, or get queried by other
processes which would like to access this kind of information, or
maintain such information in the first instance...

A general-purpose unix-like kernel must do what it has been designed
for: providing access to hardware resources (memory and devices) and
schedule processes.

Maybe you need another (non-unix-like and non-general-purpose)
operating system?

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  ]