Re: No ifconfig
On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat
> > >> and they can become "your" lackeys.
> > >
> > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did
> > > so because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is
> > > libelous and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and
> > > apologize immediately.
> >
> > I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's
> > signature order). I am way beyond soap bubbles. But don't take it
> > personally, it is only politics.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its conclusions
> about you both, and I have decided to never give you any help
> whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically. I suspect
> most helpful contributors on this list have already silently decided
> the same, or will do so soon if you continue insulting the Debian
> developers.
This has already affected my willingness to help people having trouble
with network-mangler.
For folks with a small SOHO network setup that involves the maximum of
253 or so maximum addresses, the most dependable intermachine method is
identical /etc/hosts files, combined with an identical /etc/resolv.conf
on all machines. You then setup an eth0 stanza
in /etc/network/interfaces that matches the name assigned to that
machine. Interfaces will look something like this:
=============
auto lo
# The loopback network interface
iface lo inet loopback
address 127.0.0.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
auto eth0
# regular network for coyote.den
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.xx.xx
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.xx.xx
=================
Substituting that machines address in place of the xx.xx
Shut down dhcpd as its not needed, nor is network-mangler.
And the best part? It Just Works(TM).
But I've caught so much static over preaching about a non-network-mangler
solution that is 90% less trouble to setup that I have given up speaking
up when to me that solution is the ideal solution to their problems.
So you can ignore me, and I'll ignore you, until you contradict me,
thereby adding to the poor OP's confusion. Where your expertise exceeds
mine, I'll do the same. Fair?
> Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I post it
> to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will answer this mail
> with another useless stunt. Please go ahead.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: