On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:08:11 -04 Christian Seiler wrote: > Am 2017-08-21 14:50, schrieb Greg Wooledge: > > [missing features in ifconfig] > > (Like Gene, I don't even know what those featues *are*.) > > From my personal experience, the following two things are > features I'm actually using regularly and that don't work > with it: > > 1. IPv6 doesn't really work properly (as explained elsewhere > by other people in this thread) > 2. Can't add multiple IP addresses to the same interface and > (worse) even if multiple IP addresses are assigned to the > same interfaces it only shows the primary address
Yes, I ask myself why this isn't possible on Linux: ifconfig enp3s0 inet alias 192.168.12.206 netmask 255.255.255.0 while it is perfectly possible on OpenBSD (with the correct device of course). I wonder which brainstorm resulted in writing ip instead of rewriting ifconfig - from scratch if necessary - with backwards compatibility. I still can't decide for myself whether having same-name-tools with subtle differences between Linux and BSD is better or not than having different tools with different names altogether and deal with it. > > (2) is really bad, especially the part where it does not show > all of the IPs that were assigned by other tools, for example > NetworkManager, or Debian's own ifupdown via > /etc/network/interfaces. Yes, and why can it not "ifconfig -A" as the BSD-ifconfig can? > There was VMS and then WNT was made - better(?) but a totally different approach - unfortunately the tools coming with WNT were crippled and not very consistent and the concept of i-nodes was implemented but never really used - but I digress. At least ip is more versatile than (Lin)-ifconfig - so there is an improvement. Will Linux now be the CTE - a totally different approach than BSD? or shall the "ux" be sacrificed by distributions and we keep the "Lin"? Linux is just the kernel. The distributions took the Linux-kernel and built a Unix-like system around it. Now it is more like they build a system according to their liking and fit it with the Linux-kernel or maybe any other in the future. That seems to be similar to the path Apple took with the Mach kernel. Kind regards, Eike -- Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE