James Carlson wrote: > Brian Utterback writes: >> Of course if we stay up to date, the hope would be that any new protocols >> will already be supported in wireshark. If not, then that same person that >> would have updated snoop will need to update wireshark. > > ... and that leads directly to my concern. The only commitment there > is here is to deliver what happens to be in the open source. > > Thus, we're stuck in a very strange place. We end up with a situation > where we deliver a nice new tool that works much better than the old > one (and one that many of us in networking in fact have used for > years), but the ARC will continue to advise new project teams to > enhance the moribund snoop tool for each new protocol, because that's > the "official" tool that Sun is supporting. > > We're not just wasting effort, but, as this proposal isn't aligned > with snoop or the networking group itself, we're actually marching in > the opposite direction. >
Well then, that's why we should EOL snoop as soon as possible. Seriously, as we add more FOSS tools, we will be increasingly in this "strange place", where we will need modifications to those tools to provide proper integration with the O.S. Thus the high cost of "free". -- blu "When Congress started Daylight Savings Time earlier, did they even consider what affect an extra hour of daylight would have on global warming? Well, did they?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
