Re: interesting claims

From: fungal-net <>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 05:36:00 +0000

I apologize for interrupting, and also make my presence known at the
same time, as my level of technical expertise should restrict me to
being a silent entry level student, but in all my searches I have not
gotten a good answer. (introduction at the end)

The Question: As a newbie outsider I wonder, after following the
discussion of supervision and tasks on stages (1,2,3), that there is a
restrictive linear progression that prevents reversal. In terms of pid1
that I may not totally understand, is there a way that an admin can
reduce the system back to pid1 and restart processes instead of taking
the system down and restarting? If a glitch is found, usually it is
corrected and we find it simple to just do a reboot. What if you can
fix the problem and do it on the fly. The question would be why (or why
not), and I am not sure I can answer it, but if you theoretically can do
so, then can you also kill pid2 while pid10 is still running. With my
limited vision I see stages as one-way check valves in a series of fluid
linear flow.

In reference to the 95% reliability model which I can understand, I
believe systemd works on 50% reliability basis. If there is a thing it
does well is to clean up the mess its own design constantly creates,
without bothering the admin. It is like a wealthy home owner who eats
chocolates throwing the wrappers on the floor while walking through the
house and having servants cleaning up behind him. He is always in a
clean house. The extremes being having the house sealed to prevent dust
coming in, or clean up every week or two and let it breath some fresh
air. I think the fallacy with supervision is if you try to anticipate
anything that can possibly happen when you can't. Can the user without
any admin privileges be allowed to compile and run software and have
100% of available resources to do so? How efficient is a system that
mandates a cap on resources?

Introduction: I don't like to eavesdrop and just read/listen discussion
without people realizing I am here too, so I am making my presence
known. I run a blog and I have been introduced
to s6 and runit in the past couple of years through using Obarun, Void,
and Artix, and by reading a few articles by Steve Litt. I am fascinated
that in the world of open and free software meritocracy is really low
when compared to corporate budgets and marketing. My aim is not to
write my own init system, not even hack the one I use, but find the
reasons why would large corporate projects fund a mediocre system, and
promote it, almost by force, while what is superior remains relatively
unknown. I understand that there are merits in working quietly and
nearly alone, but still. I have a hunch that control, of software
design and users, may have something to do with the "source of funding".

PS I promise to remain quiet and learn before I speak again.
Received on Thu May 16 2019 - 05:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC