Re: No ifconfig

[Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net>]

On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:08:11 -04 Christian Seiler wrote:
> Am 2017-08-21 14:50, schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> > [missing features in ifconfig]
> > (Like Gene, I don't even know what those featues *are*.)
> 
>  From my personal experience, the following two things are
> features I'm actually using regularly and that don't work
> with it:
> 
> 1. IPv6 doesn't really work properly (as explained elsewhere
>     by other people in this thread)
> 2. Can't add multiple IP addresses to the same interface and
>     (worse) even if multiple IP addresses are assigned to the
>     same interfaces it only shows the primary address

Yes, I ask myself why this isn't possible on Linux:
ifconfig enp3s0 inet alias 192.168.12.206 netmask 255.255.255.0
while it is perfectly possible on OpenBSD (with the correct device of course).

I wonder which brainstorm resulted in writing ip instead of rewriting ifconfig 
- from scratch if necessary - with backwards compatibility.

I still can't decide for myself whether having same-name-tools with subtle 
differences between Linux and BSD is better or not than having different tools 
with different names altogether and deal with it.
> 
> (2) is really bad, especially the part where it does not show
> all of the IPs that were assigned by other tools, for example
> NetworkManager, or Debian's own ifupdown via
> /etc/network/interfaces.
Yes, and why can it not "ifconfig -A" as the BSD-ifconfig can?
> 
There was VMS and then WNT was made - better(?) but a totally different 
approach - unfortunately the tools coming with WNT were crippled and not very 
consistent and the concept of i-nodes was implemented but never really used - 
but I digress.
At least ip is more versatile than (Lin)-ifconfig - so there is an improvement.
Will Linux now be the CTE - a totally different approach than BSD?
or shall the "ux" be sacrificed by distributions and we keep the "Lin"?

Linux is just the kernel. The distributions took the Linux-kernel and built a 
Unix-like system around it.
Now it is more like they build a system according to their liking and fit it 
with the Linux-kernel or maybe any other in the future.
That seems to be similar to the path Apple took with the Mach kernel.

Kind regards,
Eike

-- 
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE