James Carlson wrote: > Joep Vesseur writes: >> Of course, this applies to a lot of programs, but I think for >> many administrators, tcpdump is on the top of their lists. >> >> Also, even though wireshark might be the preferred open source candidate >> for us, tcpdump is here to stay for a long time. > > Pity the poor folks who write protocols for a living. Which one of > these tools -- snoop, wireshark, tcpdump -- should we attempt to > update to support our projects? Should we try to update them all? > Should we pick one because we think it's nifty?
Nobody will ask me, well, you just did... drop snoop, choose wireshark for what we want to work best, and provide tcpdump (either through the contrib repository or ON, I don't really care... I think contrib is best). > This is an architectural mess, and this sort of unnecessary "choice" > has serious costs associated with it. It affects many others, and not > just those people who are building these random packages and > delivering them. Plus, it's a waste of time: we should be delivering > wireshark, but we haven't, even though the skids have been properly > greased. > > I'm making a plea for some thought to be put into the process. Can we > please do that? Or have we just completely given up on system > architecture and the effects that one random project can have on > another? I think that, at the time we decided we wanted to provide a familiar OS, we let some of the architectural cleanliness slip, as much as I personally dislike that. Joep
