Re: /etc/init.d/network is too simple?
>>>>> "Avery" == Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@worldvisions.ca> writes:
Avery> That would be pretty neat. Of course, the ip-up directories
Avery> need to know how to bring up and interface, not just what to
Avery> do once we're connected.
Avery> I think?
Nope. These are things to run after the interface has been brought up and
after it goes down. Of course, we should pass to these scripts what
kind of interface it is being called for, such as eth0 or ppp0.
Avery> Not too hard, but I still get dizzy. It's much harder to
Avery> have my firewall automatically update itself with my
Avery> personally preferred settings when I connect the network
Avery> card, because the pcmcia schemes implementation didn't think
Avery> of that.
That kind of thing has to be handled by a script of some sort in any
case. A simple configuration file will not suffice.
Avery> But one side of this argument was that overcomplicated
Avery> configuration schemes force people to use config scripts,
Avery> where previously a simple config file would do. I'd rather
Avery> edit /etc/init.d/network than run netconfig (a fictional
Avery> program) every time I change a setting, and the same applies
Avery> to PCMCIA.
Unfortunately, the PCMCIA script has to be complicated because it does a
lot of stuff. When I'm not connected to the network, which is most
of the time, I don't want my system configured to think that it IS
connected to the network. I have modified my PPP settings to mirror
what the PCMCIA scripts do. This is very useful, since my laptop
is always configured correctly, no mater whether I'm dialed into my
school's network, dialed into my commercial ISP, or connected directly
to the school's network via an Ethernet card. Everything works without
my needing to reconfigure my system at all.
Nevertheless, I agree 100% that the configuration of static network
connections should remain as simple as possible. I just don't see the
need for the extra complexity.
Brian
Reply to: