Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
[dd]
> SMF is useful to configure a system when it is being installed using
> a manifest that allows you to specify all customizations for all
> services;
I politely disagree. Nothing is as useful as text configs.
In FreeBSD, for example, all customizations can be specified by
appending variable=value pairs to /etc/rc.conf.local, or by placing
snippets into /etc/rc.conf.d/
This can be done by a script, if necessary, or any kind of CLI or GUI
configurator, or manually.
> but requiring admins to type:
> # svccfg -s svc:/system/identity:node \
> "setprop config/nodename = astring: newhostname"
> # svcadm refresh svc:/system/identity:node
> # svcadm restart svc:/system/identity:node
> is more like punishing them.
I completely agree. smf is a good idea as a facility to maintain
system services up and running. But trying to reinvent Windows
registry for storing configurations looks odd at best.
I have seen in my life yet another system which tried to present its
configuration as a tree looking very much like the Windows registry. It
was the Nortel Multiservice Switch. I am so happy it's EOL. It was a
royal PITA configuring it from the CLI, I could never do it without
looking into my workbook.
> So I changed the hostname(1m) command so that the sysadmin can just
> type:
> hostname newhostname
That's great, provided the sysadmin can be sure that this command
will also make all the necessary svc actions and store the
configuration permanently. Like, I did not know that "zic -l" will
do that for me.