On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 12:52 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 01:24 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >>> How is NM-dispatcher a developer service? Similarly, nm-tool is > >>> at least quicker than 'ip addr ls ; ip route ls ; cat /etc/resolv.conf'. > >> > >> and ifconfig -a works on multiple platforms, so it's the one that will > >> win. > > > > ifconfig -a doesn't show all the information if you're doing multiple > > addresses on an adapter. > > it doesn't show binding but it will show virtual interfaces, eth0:1, etc. Use /sbin/ip already :) AFAIK virtual interfaces are completely obsoleted by mutiple addresses per interface, which /sbin/ip (via netlink) makes entirely available. Is there some reason the ethX:X configuration is desirable over just adding multiple addresses to the interface? dan > but that's a side issue... > > > > Let me change the wording of your argument a little... > > > > "Look, for the desktop in particular Linux makes a lot of sense, I am > > not arguing otherwise. > > > > For the server it is a solution looking for a problem. Solaris works > > just fine thank you very much." > > > > It's *exactly* the arguments I heard with switching out Solaris stuff > > when I was at NCSU. > > Interesting, when I was in the same situation at duke the arguments I > heard was that linux wasn't tested enough and open source software wasn't > supported. It had nothing to do with it being too featureful. The > featureset b/t solaris servers and linux servers in 1999 were almost > identical. Most of the tools were actually the SAME CODE. > > > > > > One of the things about progress and getting to a more mature *platform* > > that is suitable across a wide range of uses is change. I'm not saying > > that NetworkManager is perfect yet for the server needs. But having > > people that want to run a server say "pound sand, go the hell away, we > > don't want to run your new-fangled stuff" doesn't help us get to where > > it is. Maintaining two systems in parallel is very much a long-run > > losing position. > > I think you're confused as to what I'm saying. You're hoisting up this > straw man that's neo-luddite and that's not me. > > I think I'm tired of both of these perspectives: > 'ALL NEW IS GOOD' > 'ALL NEW IS BAD' > > I'd like a bit more of: > "not all this new shit works and some of it should not have been started" > "sometimes you do have to throw one away" > > And finally a bit more patience that changing systems which have been in > place for over a decade is going to cause some angst. That angst can be > minimized if the response to it is not so vehement and impatient. We have > a lot of vocal people who seem to think any resistance to change means you > want nothing to change. And we have a lot of vocal people who seem to > think that rethinking how we're doing thing is akin to heresy. > > It's just not that simple. > > -sv > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
