On Nov 14, 2007 8:43 AM, Jordan Brown (Sun) <opensolaris at jordan.maileater.net> wrote: > Rainer Heilke wrote: > > This, I believe, would be the behaviour expected by admins. > > Do note that one of the goals of SMF (at least as I perceive it from > outside the SMF group) is to change how people do system administration. > As a result, expected behavior may or may not be important. Behavior > has to be *sensible*, but I'd say it's OK to be different if the result > is by some reasonable metric better. The goal is *not* to just put > different words around the same old init scripts.
Which is one reason for using enable/disable rather than start/stop. At least then it's clear that it's a different operation. If we do have start/stop, then the traditional expectations of start/stop should apply. (And if start/stop actually do something different, then they're broken.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
