On Tue, 29 May 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>
>>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>>> James Carlson wrote:
>>>>> Darren J Moffat writes:
>>>>>> We can argue this indefinitely but regardless of what some PSARC
>>>>>> members think admins, developers on Solaris and other platforms act
>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of how they act, we don't apply any engineering towards
>>>>> making their actions supportable.
>>>>
>>>> and there in lies the problem, we are not meeting customer needs here.
>>>> Customers and partners really just don't care about that, we know they
>>>> build stuff on top of syslog. They expect to build stuff ontop of syslog
>>>> on all platforms not just Solaris. IMO we need to take the fingers out
>>>> of our ears and stop just saying "la la la la la la" everything this
>>>> comes up and ignoring what the customers use and we know they use.
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying for *this* case is that a reduction in the information
>>>> presented is a problem and for me it means that this case doesn't meet
>>>> its goals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But for existing customers, the existing information was not provided in
>>> anything remotely resembling a consistent manner. Each driver did its own
>>> thing. For a customer/application to have depended on this kind of
>>> information would have been utterly insane, if they wanted the application
>>> to work with different NICs, etc.
>>
>> But that is not the case in a large datacenter environment that I'm
>> familiar with. The same one where all the ethernet ports are hard-coded.
>> The good Sys Admins understand the limitations of hardcoding data in
>> scripts. However, the environment tends to remain static over long periods
>> of time (for various reasons, including the hassle of filling in endless
>> electronic forms to make something simple happen and the implied threat of
>> loosing your job if it does not work out as planned). A machine will be
>> configured to run an application (they like one application per machine!)
>> and it will stay on that machine for 3 to 5 years. Only after an app moves
>> to a different/upgraded machine will the hard-coded scripts be
>> re-evaluated. Oh ... and yes ... they are still running Solaris 8!
>
> Then they won't be impacted until they upgrade to Solaris 11. At which point
> most of their broken scripts will need to be fixed anyway for other reasons.
> So what's the problem?
The only "problem" is trying to convince you to retain the existing
behavior! :)
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
