I recall MySQL having a wrapper that used to take care of this
Did they name it "daemontools"?
There is a "respawn" option, which one can use in inittab.
You would never use inittab to start services, and inittab doesn't even exist anymore.
For other critical services, one can choose among wrappers, cron jobs, monitoring via syslog or SNMP, inter-process communication, and more. Do you argue we should stop using such techniques and go for a one-size-fits-all, infallible system?
Writing a second cron-job to respawn your service is a laborious mess, with unnecessary overhead. SNMP or other monitoring is what we've been reduced to, but who the hell wants to pay for around-the-clock employees, or get paged in the middle of the night, just because a few services might need to be restarted? And let's not forget, CROND CRASHES, TOO. What's monitoring cron and keeping it running?
Do you argue we should stop using such techniques and go for a one-size-fits-all, infallible system?
Yes, we should stop using such *hacks*, and get an init replacement that will start services properly, and keep them running. It's not a complex concept. Windows NT has been doing that since inception, and Linux is seriously missing out. It won't eliminate the utility of SNMP, cron, etc., but they will see less abuse.
If you'd like to start hacking on init... more power to you. Get it to monitor and respawn services in a sane way, and yours can be a competitor right up there with upstart and systemd.
The US plugged the leak, no new documents has been leaked lately, just been releasing the June documents in a timely rate. And while there are no new leakers, the government keep promising that they did not ever, is not doing, and will stop doing whatever is in this leaks, hoping that there are people with lower IQ than body temperature (in celsius) that believes them, while now there is no way to truly verify that (they probably will even release their own "leaks" to keep the illusion of that all will be legal from now on).
Anyway, for what Snowden did, (if i owned a big enough company) i would give him a good salary even for doing nothing. And if can do something useful, something that he would enjoy doing, the better.
What you don't understand is that the government can see in the dark. Even if you invent a new kind of dark, they'll just respond by making sure they can see in that, too.
Silence and secrecy are the wrong answers.
I understand the desire for local control and have no problem with it, I'm just trying to understand why it's believed that that's always best, when I can't think of a reason why except for "ideologically it's what I want".
Here it is: When you have local control, two things obtain: (1), the number of people affected by the control being exerted is minimal, and (2) the people being affected (or afflicted) have a much larger input as to change or continuation, so that if said control turns out to be onerous (as many of the FCC's radio-related controls are), the locals can actually change them -- or, likewise, if they prefer the current state of affairs, they are considerably more empowered to maintain the status quo.
On the other side of the coin, control exerted at the national level, as the FCC is currently a poster child for, is completely resistant to local control, circumstance, or intent, without some unusual input channel (bribery, corporate shill, real estate slinging, etc.)
The FCC used to matter in that the communications below 30 mhz -- AM radio, etc. -- were critical to the system, and said communications go all over the place depending on the time of day. We no longer depend significantly on these communications, and the FCC's relevance at a national level is therefore in some doubt.
my brain decides that we are listening to music now, and nothing else
Try a white-noise generator for a while, instead.
"Little else matters than to write good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer