starting Fedora Server SIG
Dan Williams
dcbw at redhat.com
Fri Nov 14 21:51:14 UTC 2008
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
>
More information about the devel
mailing list