Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:10:58 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806041910.NAA03447@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199806041849.NAA02023@dyson.iquest.net> References: <199806041650.KAA02787@mt.sri.com> <199806041849.NAA02023@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > In other words, *MORE* esoteric stuff to remember, making FreeBSD/unix > > that much harder to administer. > > > kernfs is just as esoteric. > > Do I have a better solution Jordan asks? The FS interface is *harder* > > for the kernel developer, but easier for the administrator. > > > > Little or no difference... How many times do you need to do a > sysctl??? At the rate they are being added to the system, often. They are used about 8-12 times now, and based on the code that has been added and code being proposed, at least a dozen more times. And, those dozen items are potentially different on each type of computer I have, so if I have an installation of 6 FreeBSD boxes with different configurations, I may have to memorize/deal with about 4-5 dozen different 'sysctl' variables. > > Doing a job poorly or making the users memorize esoteric namespaces just > > for the sake of 'checking off a feature box' is not doing the user-base > > any favors. Anyone motivated enough to figure it out how to configure a > > specific machine may like you, but the general user population will > > never benefit from that work since they don't have the time or ability > > to figure it out. In other words, you'll end up working really hard for > > 1-2 sites, and no one else will aprreciate/use the resulting hard-work > > put in. For a volunteer project, this is a shame. :( > Sorry, /kernfs is just as esoteric. The thing that you are complaining > about is missing documentation on the hierarchy (filesystems don't provide > that automatically.) Sure they do. It's more obvious what something does based on it's hierarchy, and it's easier to figure it out because I can simply/easily modify it. And, I'm not stating that it's to be taken to the polar extreme either, but that it's a *better* solution than sysctl. It's still not the best solution either, but extending a poorer solution is certainly a step in the wrong direction. I agree with Bruce in that programs are generally a better way of configuring things. It's obvious if you know the system what needs to be run, and how to get help on it. It also makes documenting things easier, which sysctl does not. People already hate to document, and making it hard to figure out where/how to document things just makes it that much less likely to be documented. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806041910.NAA03447>