| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put |
| 6 |
> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more |
| 9 |
> desktop-targeted to me. The network script sets the domain name |
| 10 |
> and bonding, dhcpcd script starts dhcpcd (which can control more than |
| 11 |
> a single interface) and wpa_supplicant script is responsible for wifi. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm with nightmorph: we should have exactly one way to configure |
| 14 |
networking (i.e. exactly one syntax). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That said, switching to newnet would be a huge mess for everybody |
| 17 |
who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual, |
| 18 |
as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they |
| 19 |
configure their nets (people don't like that kind of stuff if the |
| 20 |
machine is 400 miles away); they would also have to find a way to |
| 21 |
build their setups in the new "language". Servers tend to have |
| 22 |
more complicated setups network-wise than workstations (think |
| 23 |
firewalls, VPN endpoint, traffic observation, ...). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So we would make things more complicated for a large user base |
| 26 |
for the benefit of desktop users who can't get DHCP/Wifi to work |
| 27 |
with oldnet. I doubt the latter is a larger group than the |
| 28 |
former. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Tobias |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
panic("%s: CORRUPTED BTREE OR SOMETHING", __FUNCTION__); |
| 37 |
linux-2.6.6/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c |
Archives