I think this discussion is veering off topic (something along the lines of "Is vi as an admin tool a Good Thing?") but the problem today is that the administrative model is subject to change (e.g., the format of files like /etc/dladm/*.conf is not an exported interface, plus it's hard to keep track of which files need to be modified to enable/disable some feature - e.g., we have too many files in /etc/ that affect interface configuration).
Having one Stable Interface that tracks sounds like a good idea, especially if one wants to automate configuration of a farm of machines. That, I believe, is one of the guiding principles behind nwam, dladm, etc. --Sowmini > Darren Reed wrote: > >> Do you have some research to support this statement that the >> sysadmin doesn't want to know about the underlying implementation? >> > > I've been biting my tongue for most of this discussion, but > I just had to respond to this. As a former sysadmin > (SunOS 4, Solaris, Ultrix, Tru64, FreeBSD, and N flavors of Linux) > who migrated into driver development, I absolutely *hate* "magic". > I want to know how everything works. I need to be able to > read the shell scripts, and find the *text* files backing whatever > datastore the system has for configuration information. I need > to know what files I need to backup if a machine is unique, > and what files to update with tools like cfengine in order > to make more machines just like the first one. I need to > be able to fix a problem in single user mode with vi from > a serial console. I don't want to be surprised by the system > making a temporary change permanent. > > Please keep people like me in mind as you try to make things > easier to use for Windows / Mac users coming to Solaris. I > think old farts like me who learned the ropes in the 80s and > 90s comprise a large part of the Solaris installed base... > > Drew >
