Re: Assorted arm-buster problems - network configuration
On Friday 05 July 2019 05:13:48 Brian wrote:
> On Fri 05 Jul 2019 at 09:56:39 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 09:42:11PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Thu 04 Jul 2019 at 22:05:09 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 08:56:45PM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 20:01 +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu 04 Jul 2019 at 19:18:13 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd also consider exterminating avahi with extreme
> > > > > > > prejudice, i.e. 'apt
> > > > > > > purge avahi-daemon'. Really simplifies things. Not
> > > > > > > installing this software in the first place works even
> > > > > > > better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gene Heskett can follow this advice if he wishes. It is to
> > > > > > be hoped that every other user ignores it.
> >
> > Oh, it seems that I've touched a nerve. My apologies just in case.
>
> No need to apologise. I was intrigued with the suggestion and simply
> wondered what the technical reason was and how not installing avahi
> would benefit a user.
>
> > > > > Why? It's advice I decided for myself 10 or more years ago
> > > > > after seeing constant reports of zeroconf bugs in various OSes
> > > > > and kit, and realising that sort of thing was also running on
> > > > > my Linux machines. The whole idea of automagically setting up
> > > > > networks just sounds like a problem and security hole waiting
> > > > > to happen. So I decided to nuke it from orbit, it was the only
> > > > > safe thing to do.
> > > >
> > > > As always, all generalizations suck. Some do avahi, others don't
> > > > (full disclosure: I am in the "don't" camp, as many may have
> > > > guessed :-)
> > >
> > > If nobody objects I would like to reword that statement. Many,
> > > many users will have avahi-daemon on their systems; a few won't.
> >
> > [1] says that half of the Debian users participating in popcon have
> > avahi-daemon installed. Your assertion that "don't camp" is a
> > minority is off. That's a first.
>
> Popularity contest statistics are a rough and ready basis for deciding
> on a course of action, but sufficient to counter a rough and ready
> argument.
>
> http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/the_popcon_problem/
>
> > Second, contrary to the popular thinking here, the world does not
> > start and does not end with GNOME and x86 along with the CUPS
> > installed. And while avahi enhances CUPS' usability indeed, it has
> > little usefulness otherwise.
>
> The enhancements it brings to the printing system are sufficient to
> more than justify its place on a user's machine.
>
That is a very poorly demonstrated fact at this site. Since before
wheezy, its been my policy to create a cups.client file on any and all
machines whose main function is to enable browsing of the server, which
is this machine. I can to to any machine on this local network and print
to either of the printers sitting one on the right rear of this table,
or to a much larger, tabloid sized ink squirting brother sitting on top
of its supplies cabinet on the next table over. Unforch I must admit
that since theres not a cupsd running on the buster, and apparently lynx
cannot follow paths like FF can I can't print without going to its own
keyboard and lxde gui.
> > Third, whatever good avahi does is limited to a single L2 network
> > segment by the very definition of how it works. This particular
> > problem shows it BTW.
> >
And does it very well both for avahi-daemon, and the dhcpd's that invent
avahi like addresses out of thin air, and then giving that BS priority
over the admins attempts to setup his network to his liking by giving
them a metric of 202 when the default priority/metric is 1024.
So his (and my) only recourse is to rip that stuff out, with a root rm -f
if that what it takes to get rid of them. IMO, bug reports should be
filed against the dhcpd's both 4 and 6 to get rid of their reporting
bogus data if there are no servers responding to their requests. Whoever
thought that those bogus numbers that looked like avahi's work might be
useful ought to be lashed with wet noodles until they've received that
message. They are not helpfull in any definition of the word useful, or
vice versa.
> > > The idea
> > > that
> > >
> > > > Not installing this software in the first place works even
> > > > better.
> > >
> > > requires clarification.
> >
> > Easy. You don't understand what the software does (Gene's here), or
> > you don't need its functions (I'm here) - you just do not install
> > it. You don't fight with it, you don't try to "disable" it in myriad
> > ways, and you do not build assorted kludges alongside of it - you do
> > not install it, simple as that.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=avahi
>
> Not installing avahi-daemon or purging it when it is not required is
> reasonable; I do both on some machines here.
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)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: