Le 29/01/2022 à 21:00, karl@??? a écrit :
> I don't see the point in letting init do serious process monitoring.
> Just use a minimal init and startup a separate process monitoring
> daemon (or what theese things are called).
>
> ...
> I don't see the point, learn to write good deamons. It seems the need
> to use theese process monitors has sprung up from the availability
> of shitty deamons.
> In my view, when a deamon dies by any other cause than from your will
> then it shall die so hard that it causes a major headacke and the shitty
> programmer should be publicly flogged as a reminder and example to other
> programmers -- well not really, but you get my point.
>
> Most deamons I have run, they just run, they don't need a process monitor
> except me.
>
    I fully share this pov. I'm happy with sysvinit or Busybox init. 
If I was still active, and needing to write daemons, I would certainly
welcome improvements on the following points:

    - simplify start/stop scripts and find a better way to express
their dependencies
    - help daemons ack when they're actually ready

    Writing a self-daemonizing daemon in C was a routine when I was
still active, though I understand it could be more difficult in shell.
Also I like that the logs are sent to syslog.

    But, as a user, I'm satisfied with sysvinit. Boot is so fast that
I've abandonned the use of suspend/resume.

--     Didier