>Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: >> The Registry model is NOT one to aspire to. > >I have to just completely disagree there. I think there are numerous >advantages to such a model, and very few disadvantages.
Unfortunately, the "few disadvantages" are, IMHO, show stoppers. (the ability to hide all sorts of malware, for one, lack of natural change control, etc) (Ask AIX users, for one, and I think the Windows registry giving rise to a whole cottage industry of "fix registry" software is telling. Also, I am getting a but tired of "everything as a service"; "svcs" output now average over 100 lines and "svcs -a" lists 250. There's a ton to improve in data presentation (and, in particular, data hiding) (I'm meaning to file an RFE for a more meaningful STIME column) >> For one I strongly dislike the fact that I never have an idea >> what is the current property and which would be the property value >> on boot; clearly they are different at times. > >First, I'd personally say that they should _not_ be different. I'm not sure I agree on that. I want to be able to disable a service and then make sure it runs at boot (in fact, I'd like to be able to "enable at next boot") too. >I have no opinion on its fragility and agree that it must _not_ be fragile. > >I see no technical reason that it must be fragile. Industry experience seem to suggest that it is not possible to get right the first time. That, I think, is a technical reason. "beyond the state of the art of software engineering". Sad, but true. I don't know enough of SMF and don't have spare cycles to go and figure out which it decides that the database is not correct. I very much like the fact that SMF allows me to disable a service once and for all; it's too bad that some services conspire to remove that big advantage by reenabling themselves each upgrade (webconsole) Casper
