Shipping "lsof" with Solaris ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] problem with /tmp FS still up

[Darren J Moffat]

Josh Hurst wrote:
> On 1/5/07, Frank Hofmann <Frank.Hofmann at sun.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Martin Bochnig wrote:
>> I think Sun has to overcome both "not invented here" and the instinctive
>> reject via "not perfect, therefore not 'good enough' no matter what the
>> users say", before lsof goes into mainstream Solaris.
> 
> If Opensolaris rejects software which is not prefect or troublesome it
> may be time to kill the  /bin/sh-rubbish with a less crappy version
> (hey, ksh93 would be a cool candidate)

The problem with lsof is an architectural one, I don't think this is a 
fair comparison with /bin/sh which isn't architecturally flawed just not 
to some peoples liking.

In the current implementation for Solaris it pokes around in kernel 
memory and it has no business doing so, it can and will break.

An implementation of lsof that used documented and Committed interfaces 
(heck even ones marked Volatile rather than some form of Private) would 
be much more likely to be accepted.

Just because /bin/sh isn't your shell of choice doesn't make it crappy. 
  Now I'm not saying that /bin/sh shouldn't be replaced, IMO a POSIX 
compliant /bin/sh would be very nice - however that happens to get 
implemented be it ksh93 or something else.

-- 
Darren J Moffat