Re: A few potential requirements

[Joe Provo <crimson@gweep.net>]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 08:32:53PM -0400, Jon Saperia wrote:
> >       On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jon Saperia wrote:
> >     > John, I find it far easier to develop applications that manage devices
> >     > when using an API/library approach rather than parsers and
> >     > interpreters.
> > 
> > Right, as would operators, if operators were tools developers by vocation,
> > rather than by unwanted avocation.  But we're operators, so we need things
> > we can type, without having our lives mediated by lots of code that we
> > would then have to pack around.  
> 
> My point has been, and remains that one should not exclude one for the
> other. You should have the interface you want. I am suggesting that if
> there is an interface available for the use I describe (application
> building), you might get better applications developed that would reduce
> your coding load and improve your effectiveness and bottom lines. Of
> course there are always jobs for developers too :-)

I guess I fail to see where stating "we require $FOO" is equivalent to "We
require $FOO at the exclusion of $BAR". If folks have the resources to
develop both, great. Most operators don't have the resources to do a lot of
integration work, which is a leading reasong vendor-specific tools tend to
be junked for custom/generic ones.

Joe, who always has "ascii-parsable config" and "tftp config access" early
    on his vendor-meeting checklist.

-- 
 crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE