Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:33:03 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806042233.QAA04941@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199806042123.OAA02195@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199806042222.QAA04845@mt.sri.com> <199806042123.OAA02195@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I argue shouldn't be exposed to the users then. If it's exposed, it > > should be documented. In other words, sysctl should go away since very > > few (if any) of it's knobs are documented except accidentally. > > You aren't clear *which* sysctl should go away. If you mean sysctl(8), I > hope you will be removing gdb, nm, hexdump, etc. as well, as these are > all user-unfriendly tools designed for studying and/or adjusting the > state of complex, undocumented things. But users aren't expected to use gdb/nm/hexdump, but sysctl is. Many of these parameters *should* be tweaked to get better performance, avoid errors, etc... > sysctl(8) is a tool for writing scripts, and performing tasks which > have been previously documented. It is not a user-friendly interface, > however it still exists to serve a purpose. What tasks have been documented that are used by sysctl? Tell me where 'sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.rfc13230=0' is documented. (And, no I don't consider it's presence in rc.network documentation. :() 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?199806042233.QAA04941>