William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
>"Jeremy C. Reed" wrote:
>What I'm trying to emphasize: the need to think about what needs to be 
>readily available to admins, particularly in single user mode.  
>
>> That hit me on a remote box last year too.
>> 
>Fortunately, this time the box was only 20 minutes away, instead of 20 
>hours away.  Sometimes, I think that NetBSD developers have a tendency 
>to be armchair developers, concerned only with their own workstation, 
>with easy single user mode access. ;-)

I'm currently installing remotely on a machine half of the US away
from me.  I've upgraded work's primary name server from Chicago 
while on vacation (only 6 hours from the machine).   I'm one of
several people in various parts of the world responsible for one
little machine on an entirely different continent.  It may be
that most developers are used to easy single user mode access,
but it often has little to do with it being their own workstation.
Machines that are critical should have remote serial console (I
have all my work servers on them), and either remote power control
or remote hands.  (mmm, http://www.realweasel.com/, hi Herb!)

Oh, and just to tie into some other part of this thread, I've had
/usr part of my root file system on every production server I've
installed at work in quite a while.  It's handy to have vi in
single user mode, even though (maybe because?) I have years of
experience using ed.

-Tracy