Brian Utterback wrote: > Michael Hunter wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:17:19 -0700 >> Neal Pollack <Neal.Pollack at Sun.COM> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >>> time a reduction in total customer count. I do not think the >>> introduction of a new tool should >>> necessitate the removal of an existing tool. I simply view it as a >>> long overdue attempt >>> to make the Solaris distro "more complete". >>> >> >> [...] >> >> In general its hard to disagree but in this case the disparity between >> snoop and wireshark is large. I hope the next time somebody brings a >> protocol to PSARC not supported in snoop they wouldn't feel like they >> have to update it. >> >> mph >> > > 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.
Agreed. And I'd go further and say that if we're adding a new protocol that isn't supported by Wireshark (or isn't likely to be unless Sun does the work) then we should be thinking twice about that protocol. Darren
