On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:28:22 -0500 Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/10/08 22:12 CST: > > > I will continue to use it and promote its use. Sorry. > > I know that sounds crappy. Sorry for that. It simply came out > bad and I really didn't proofread. > > > > Now that said, I do need to accommodate LFS and its use of IP-Route. > > I thought I put an incidental mention that you could eliminate the > > patch if you have Net-Tools installed. I install Net-Tools in LFS > > still to this day and really see no need to change. I didn't think > > the mention was overkill. If someone wants ifconfig, they won't mind > > installing the Net-Tools package. > > > > Tell me how we can phrase it so that folks will know that you can > > still use ifconfig. I'm wide open to suggestions. I don't want to > > eliminate the mention of ifconfig altogether though. > > Net-Tools is not dead. I've been using these tools for 20-something > years, so it's hard to learn new stuff when the existing may still > be the status-quo. See http://net-tools.berlios.de/ > > Though development stopped for a while, the effectiveness of the > tool did not. Other folks also recognize this. > > I believe we need to encourage development of the existing tools, > instead of developing new ones. Apparently I'm not the only one. > > Discussion is welcome. > (too hard to snip) I just build both. But I'm almost converted to iproute2 in the (shrinking) brain now, so I might drop Net-Tools next build. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
