On 23/03/09 12:06 PM, Sebastien Roy wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:51 -0400, Girish Moodalbail wrote: > >> On 03/23/09 14:31, Sebastien Roy wrote: >> >>> The argument that is being made is that "ill" is an implementation >>> detail that has leaked into the administrative model and confused people >>> who are familiar with other operating systems (e.g. BSD and Linux). >>> >>> Are you saying that there will be a single IP interface, but that there >>> will be multiple properties with the same name associated with that >>> interface? >>> >> No there will be single property which, based on supplied "-f" value, >> will be applied to all v4 interfaces or all v6 interfaces. Because >> today some property value need to be different for v4 and v6. There is >> no exposure of 'ill' here right? >> > > In the vocabulary you're using, there is an implicit reference to "ill". > The very statements "v4 interface" and "v6 interface" refer to "ill"s. > I think it's counter-productive to refer to such "interfaces", as > they're implementation constructs in the IP module that are also part of > the ifconfig administrative model we're trying to ditch. >
Are we also trying to ditch our existing users by changing so many things that they've been familiar with on Unix that OpenSolaris no longer feels like Unix and is thus not something they want to use? Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20090325/82256a71/attachment.html>
