Re: [dev] A replacement for at.

From: Kamil Cholewiński <harry666t_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:05:58 +0100

> Wouldn't you need a service supervisor with at's functionallity?

No. Separation of concerns.

> If you are paranoid about sat crashing

When in doubt, assume the component will crash/fail.

> as long as you can have user-private services.

Yes, please let's stop writing process management code into daemons and
instead solve this problem in a portable and non-sucky way.
Received on Fri Jan 01 2016 - 18:05:58 CET