Jim Walker writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > What's the point? > > > > tcpdump is enough like snoop that it seems to me that there's not a > > great reason to do this. Instead, it'd be much nicer to see wireshark > > integrated (which includes a command line tool that's more powerful > > than either tcpdump *or* snoop), and also have snoop yanked from the > > product. > > > > The time spent here could be better spent elsewhere. > > tcpdump is on the top 25 miss list, so I guess someone wants it.
I think I might have been unclear on the point I was making. Is it on that list _because_ we still lack wireshark? Or is it on that list because there are folks that just have to have the kitchen sink tossed in? This entire area has police tape around it. We're still updating the moldy and poorly-designed "snoop" application. We approved the integration of wireshark years ago (see PSARC 2007/334), with advice to remove snoop. And now we're proposing to integrate tcpdump -- an application that has fewer features than wireshark, and that essentially duplicates snoop in functionality. So I have to ask: what thought is being put into these integrations? They can't just be random, can they? At a minimum, I think the ARC should consider whether this project actually conforms to the advice given. I don't believe it does. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
