Re: Buster without systemd?
On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 06:42:44 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2020 06:04:10 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 23 mar 20, 18:42:49, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Thats a problem I don't have Greg. I went to a locally defined hosts
> > > file 30+ years ago for all my private resolutions, and it Just
> > > Works. Queries that go out on the wire for resolution are relayed to
> > > the dns services of my provider. Resolution times for external sites
> > > are sub 100 millisecond as a general rule. Thats ALL handled by my
> > > router running dd-wrt which I think is using dnsmasq.
> > >
> > > Yet every time I promote such a structure as a solution to someones
> > > local network problems I am the idiot according to you for not using
> > > dhcp globally. I don't enjoy being painted as an a-hole for using
> > > something that Just Works. So I've quit unless you or someone like
> > > you pulls my chain.
> >
> > Static IPs and /etc/hosts works just fine here with systemd-networkd /
> > systemd-resolved and Network Manager.
> >
> > > For the "vast majority of system's", as I install them, the first
> > > thing I have to do is uninstall that stuff as it has yet in the last
> > > 5 years, to use anything in the routing table but the avahi supplied
> > > 169.xx.cc.nn address which is not allowed off the premises by
> > > dd-wrt.
> >
> > [citation needed]
>
> My own posting about it in just the past year, but that posting was only
> done after the problem was solved. As its a bit hard to post from the
> machine that has a bogus routing setup. With dhcpd5 (I think thats the
> right name) in the system it does no good to put the correct route as a
> gateway statement in your /e/n/interfaces tree.
Hm, you thought you'd probably fixed the problem IIRC while composing
your post of Sat, 6 Jul 2019 21:38:10 -0400, after a couple of days of
back-and-forth here, and after being asked to move the discussion here
from a different list.
> So that and avahi generally get nuked.
Most of us avoid installing packages, rather than nuking them.
Oh, but I almost forgot, it wasn't a Debian system in any case.
> IMNSHO both were written to screw up networking,
> their only possible reason-de-tere.
Shame on you, sir.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: