Peter Tribble wrote: > 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 and I are saying essentially the same thing; we're just attacking the problem from two different angles. Rainer -- Mind the gap.
