On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 23:39 , Henry B. Hotz wrote: >> The fact that SMF's internals are so deliberately opaque makes it >> impossible for a typical admin to see if that is the case. The fact >> that so many people (who don't want to) are *required* to deal with >> SMF means there are a lot of people who need that assurance who won't >> get it. > While I do agree that there could be more and better smf > documentation, > especially technical design docs on how it fits together (if someone > has pointers please tell me), I disagree on the rest. First of all smf > so far for me my team and the several hundred Solaris 10 hosts is > something we rely on and have absolute confidence in. Second you still > can use /etc/*.d files, smf will automatically take care of them, but > once you discovered the beauty of it you won't do this anyway.
Want to bet? If I need to configure a service on 7+ different versions of Unix (including Solaris 9) why would I do Solaris 10 differently? I have exactly the same objections to Apple's launchd, which seems to have similar design goals and results in similar divergence from what used to be pretty common among the different Unix flavors. Please do not expect me to be happy about the increase in my workload. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government. Henry.B.Hotz at jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz at oxy.edu
