James Carlson wrote: > Darren Reed writes: > >> I installed snv106 and started to play around with crossbow. >> I was using inside a virtual host and then with a reboot, >> my vnic0 doesn't appear. The standard commands can't see it. >> A question to crossbow-discuss goes largely unanswered. >> Now if I translate that to working in an office, using Solaris >> for some production environment, the it is like that Sun's >> support is of no help and it's up to me to find out what the >> problem is and fix it. >> > > We already expose all of our internal details in both the source code > and the internal design and other documentation we publish. These > things aren't hidden. > > Thus, I *think* you're suggesting more. You seem to be suggesting > that condoning administrative tweeking of undocumented interfaces > might be a way to help out poor admins who are saddled with lousy > support from Sun. >
It's not "might be a way", it "is the way it is done." > I think that's wrong on multiple fronts. First of all, we shouldn't > have lousy support at all, and I think it's important to make sure > that bad support experiences just don't happen. > Agreed. > If the place you asked your question (the project team mailing list) > really is the right place to get customer support, and you didn't get > the expected level of support there, then that's a problem that needs > to be fixed right away. Make sure you tell someone in charge of > support about your problem, and get the support problem fixed so that > customers don't stumble over it. If that wasn't the right place to > ask for customer support (I suspect it may not have been), then I > think you didn't follow the support process. Yelling at the toaster > might not fix the coffee maker. > Do you have any other suggestions as to where one would bring up problems using crossbow in nevada? > There just shouldn't be any cases where customers are out in the cold, > trying to figure out why something deep in the bowels of the system is > broken. That's why we test things before shipping them, and why we > employ support people. > > Secondly, I think you're on a slippery slope here. Just how much > should we twist system architecture to match undocumented use? Should > we rule out the use of SMF and require plain text files for all > service configuration instead? > I think that's going to an extreme... But if networking things start providing front ends to stuff in SMF, the equivalent to "editting a text file" might be "running svccfg" to directly manipulate the property rather than use a front end? Darren
