systemd: Is it wrong?

[JB]

Lennart Poettering <mzerqung <at> 0pointer.de> writes:

> ... 
> > So one service can not have multiple daemons?
> 
> As mentioned earlier, it can, but we strongly advise you not to do this,
> since it makes it hard to supervise and monitor a service, to restart it
> when it crashes, to collect exit statusses, to run other services on
> failure, to match up log messages, to even inform the user about most
> basic service status. We support this for compat with SysV, not as a
> feature you should actually use.
> ...

That's strange. Perhaps I misunderstand you ...

Linux.FR has an interview with Lennart Poettering ...
http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943

"LinuxFr.org : Could explain a little bit your sentence: "Systemd is the first
Linux init system which allows you to properly kill a service" ?

Lennart : A service like Apache might have a number of subprocesses running,
like CGI scripts, which might have been written by 3rd parties and hence are
very lightly controlled only. This gives them the power to detach themselves
almost completely from the main Apache service, and this actually happens in
real life.
In systemd this is not possible anymore, and processes can no longer escape the
supervision. That enables us -- for the first time -- to fully kill a service
and all its helper processes, in a way that we can be sure no CGI script can
escape us.
For details see this blog story I posted a while back.
It's kinda ironic that the job of killing a service which appears to simple at
first is actually quite hard to get right, and only now we could fix this
properly. One might have hoped this issue would have been fixed much earlier on
Linux."
 
Then I would assume that systemd could do it, i.e. control multiple services
of any type (daemons, master/slave, or multithreaded) easily in its own
environment it creates and controlls fully ...

JB