Opinions on SMF

John Marino dragonflybsd at marino.st
Tue Sep 10 12:01:06 PDT 2013

I would have preferred not to respond to any of this, but ...

On 9/10/2013 17:35, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Put otherwise: I can do quite a lot of things using awk alone. What can I do
> with XML alone?

You are comparing a data format to an program.  This question doesn't
merit a response.

> 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. 

easy: very
needed: vi
reliable: very

> 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
> regards.

More apples and oranges.  You cannot compare a manifest to a script.

> Apparently, the main reason against SMF itself was that it doesn't provide
> much over any other init system. In fact I can't imagine any task I can
> accomplish with SMF that I can't with the default OpenBSD install.

So now it's clear you have zero experience and knowledge about SMF.

> Everyone would agree. The question here is: what prevents a shell script to do
> the same thing? I doubt that SMF employs any magic to get the status of daemon
> - most likely it detects it using the same mechanisms as a shell script could.

First you start with the "my aunt would be my uncle" argument.  And
doubt as much as you like it not to be true, SMF is much more capable
than a shell script.

Look, I get you understand init scripts.  But you can't just say SMF (or
launchd or upstart or systemd) and init scripts are basically the same
thing when you clearly don't have any experience the former.

I know 90% of the folks want this thread to die already.  Let's try to
keep any follow-ups worth the pain or don't bother.


More information about the Users mailing list