In this case, it's different. The Erlang/OTP approach involves maintaining internal supervisor trees that are bound to the semantics of the VM and its language

In this case, it's different. The Erlang/OTP approach involves maintaining internal supervisor trees that are bound to the semantics of the VM and its language constructs, whereas the author's involves using an OS process supervisor (daemontools) to just reexec the program every time it crashes/hangs. The potentials for data corruption and tainted state is higher in the latter, though it's still relatively good for a surprising number of problems.