> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 08:39 -0400, Bruno Lauzé wrote:
>> One thing I feel FreeBSD always ignored is instrumentation frameworks.
>> I am talking about wbem, cim model and implementation like OpenPegasus. Why
>> is that?
>> I ported OpenPegasus to work in FreeBSD with few patches.
>> However, of course without providers a wbem doesn't go far. I started to see
>> how to shape providers for freebsd at:
>> my openpegasus port is at:
>> Apple ships a wbem
>> Microsoft ships a wbem / non-standard
>> RedHat ships it.
>> Suse ships it.
>> z/OS ships it.
>> Ubuntu and distro-like ships it.
>> And Solaris does also.
>> Why not us?
>> The advantage outside of this idea is better coding technique and design to
>> expose API first and utility based on those APIs.
>> if any utility can be used as API, this discard the need for application to
>> use system() or popen() to execute shell code to accomplish system tasks,
>> which is really bad but widely widespread in lack of good API exposure of
>> those utilities. This reduce a lot of error with changes in utilities
>> switches, etc. and mitigate security risks.
>> Wouldn't it be great to query FreeBSD with queries like:
>> select * from UNIX_DiskDrive where Storage_Capacity> 1000
>> select * from UNIX_SCSIController WHERE LastErrorCode <> 0
>> Anyway, this is just to talk, let me know your opinions!
> Are you going to propose updates/new ports for these tools?
Well, like I mentioned, it's pretty useless to publish my port of openpegasus
if there's no effort to develop providers for FreeBSD. A task that I started
working on when time permits it.
My point was to see what people in FreeBSD community thinks about this, about
instrumentation and OS exposure to this standard.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"