Opinions on SMF

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff czarkoff at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 08:35:57 PDT 2013

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 08:18:13AM +1000, Petr Janda wrote:
> Using the same argument, we should replace everything, including Bourne
> shell(often hard to read syntax), awk (it's short for awkward yeah?),
> the user might have hard time understanding.

Flawed analogy: unlike awk and Bourne shell XMLish syntax doesn't help
accomplish any task - it just clutters text. Its lack of readability is not a
trade off.

Put otherwise: I can do quite a lot of things using awk alone. What can I do
with XML alone?

> Just how often does anyone admin need to write/change the start scripts?

I don't see how the fact that I don't have to deal with SMF too often does
make its syntax better.

It doesn't matter. What matters is how easy it is to write/change the start
scripts if/when needed, what it takes to analyze the scripts and how reliable
is the result. Obviously, adding XML to otherwise present command language of
the init and daemon configuration syntax doesn't add in either of these

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff

More information about the Users mailing list