Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/06/2000 10:11:42
In article <200006051854.e55IsI503455@lop-nor.ihack.net> you write:
>Really, given the way the world works today, and the simply fact that
>site managers generally *want* SNMP support, the right thing to do is
>to merge our sysctl(2) MIB with SNMP. The user API would be almost
>the same as it is today, but it would require no extra name
>translation for SNMP. The internal implementation could of course be
>anything we want; adding a pluggable interface would be fairly
Oh good. I'm not the only person who's had this idea. FWIW, I'm not sure
I'm in favour of it, but it seems like it'd be rather fun to explore.