Le 29/01/2022 à 21:00, k...@aspodata.se 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
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
