> I was pretty happy with stap, it had a really rich feature set. So are other companies. I mentioned it in the post, as in a way this hurt BPF development, as

> I was pretty happy with stap, it had a really rich feature set. So are other companies. I mentioned it in the post, as in a way this hurt BPF development, as companies that normally would have contributed resources said they were satisfied with stap. Exciting times might be ahead for stap, if it continues its BPF backend. As for naming, yes, we need better names. Maybe the bcc/Python/BPF combination can be named something?