[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!"):
> That said, for simple server network configuration patterns, ifupdown just
> works.  I think a lot of the push-back that's happening in this thread is
> that replacing ifupdown for the simple but very common case of having one
> statically-configured or DHCP-configured wired Ethernet connection on a
> server seems like a really bad idea, since ifupdown just works and is
> substantially better than the Red Hat equivalent.


The only reason we are having this enormous argument is because people
are threatening to take away ifupdown.

I appreciate that ifupdown has both design errors[1] and bugs.  But
the solution is not to replace it with network-manager - my opinion of
network-manager cannot be reasonably expressed on this list.

[1] For example, the way it tries to keep its own record of the state
of your interfaces, rather than examining them when needed.

These problems with ifupdown are not in principle impossible to fix;
nor are they necessarily even difficult to quickly bodge so as to keep
it working.


Reply to: