Le 19 mars 08 ? 23:22, Nicolas Williams a ?crit : > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:17:34PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >>> As a former sysadmin I believe what's missing is remote access. The >>> rest is fine. You're generalizing. >> >> No, what's missing is a simple way for the human sysadmin to view and > > I *like* the SMF UI. I was a senior sysadmin for seven years at a > large > investment bank. I am proof that there are sysadmins who like this. > I know many don't. An existence proof was all I needed to make the > above assertion ;)
The problem is...SMF provide only one method. We'd like to choose...vi or svcprop/svcadm, depending on what we're trying to do. Le 20 mars 08 ? 00:11, Mike Shapiro a ?crit : > SMF's internals are not opaque. There is a read-only copy of every > manifest in /var. There are tools (svcprop, svccfg) that examine > the database. > There are tools (e.g. svcs) to view running services. What else > are you looking for? Ahah ! Simple things like : # grep blabla /etc/init.d/* Le 20 mars 08 ? 07:39, Kyle McDonald a ?crit : > Agreed. The one 'feature' SMF is missing that I find the most useful > in config files are *comments*. +2 ! > > Another shortcoming that has been mentioned elsewhere is the > complexity for the admin to create a new service for an software > that doesn't ship with one. the /etc/rcX.d scripts may not have been > the best for this in the past, but they were shell scripts which was > a skill SysAdmins already knew, and used regularly. Having to learn > how to create new manifests in XML significantly raises that bar. I did the step...and I completely agree. Simple things are hard with SMF ! We need a easier way to create "stupid" services. Count how many things you have to do for a simple "/usr/local/sbin/ mydaemon -D". Nicolas
