Le quintidi 25 germinal, an CCXXV, tomas@tuxteam.de a écrit : > Thanks for you nice, condescending tone. Very much appreciated. I am sorry you take it that way. It was not meant to, and thinking about it again, I see nothing condescending in assuming, based on your statement, that you are not familiar with the obsession of a fringe of the Libre software developer community. > Besides, PERFECTLY, oh, well. ECC RAM. Redundant processors. Formally > validated software. Well, your irritation made you do something dishonest: ridiculing a point of my discourse ignoring that I addressed exactly the same issue in the next paragraph. > I never said SysV's PID scheme is a good idea. For me it's "good enough", Well, you realize it is good enough *for you*, there are a lot of people who consider it not good enough for them. > but I mentioned enough alternatives. You have to make sure that the > monitor process doesn't die (modulo things which can happen to PID 1 > too), and that's pretty feasible whithin a current Linux system (the > OOM killer you mention, for example: PostgreSQL excludes its postmaster > from that; you've to make sure that the monitor process doesn't get > out of control, but that's achieved by keeping it simple and small). You can do all you want, PID 1 is still the only immortal process on the system. And if every single daemon must implement workarounds for the limitations of SysV init, I say this is a seriously flawed design. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature