On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:50AM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>
> 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?
Begs the question: if you expect them all to be the same, why are you
running 7+ different versions in the first place?
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20080320/d32cbeac/attachment.bin>
