Re: No ifconfig
On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> 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?
Which "poor OP" are you referring to? It has been a long thread.
> > 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.
network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into
making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a
lack of any deep understanding of how the software works.
/etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
This is 2017.
--
Brian.
Reply to: