Web lists-archives.com

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...




Le quintidi 25 germinal, an CCXXV, tomas@xxxxxxxxxx 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