On Mon 24 Jan 2022 at 10:39:01 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 15:01:09 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 07:09:27PM +0000, Brian wrote: > > > On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 13:53:01 -0500, gene heskett wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:26:56 PM EST Felix Miata wrote: > > > > > Greg Wooledge composed on 2022-01-23 08:42 (UTC-0500): > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 08:50:56AM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > >> As far as I can tell (with my limited understanding of DNS) it only > > > > > >> makes it easier to share /etc/hosts with no obvious downside. > > > > > > > > > > > > If that actually works, that's great news for Gene. It means he can > > > > > > duplicate a single /etc/hosts file across all systems without > > > > > > needing > > > > > > to bolt on a unique per-system header afterward. > > > > > > > > > > I've been sharing the very same hosts file among all my PCs for well > > > > > over a decade, probably closer to two. > > > > > > > > And I have been for 2 decades and change as it once had an amiga as one > > > > of its clients. > > > > > > What advice would you give to a user regarding the benefits of a hosts > > > file as opposed to more modern techniques? > > > > I'll treat this question as "static interface configuration and hosts > > files". > > > > The advantage is that it's conceptually simpler. > > > > The disadvantages are numerous. > > > > * Adding a new host, or changing a host's IP address, requires > > platform-specific knowledge on the host in question. On a > > heterogeneous network, that means you need knowledge of how to do > > this on all the different platforms. This may include devices like > > printers, where it's quite difficult, maybe even impossible, to > > configure an address without DHCP. > > > > * After a change is made, it has to be replicated across your entire > > network. Manually. > > > > * Any "visitor" machines that are temporarily added to your network will > > need to be configured manually, and they will have zero knowledge of > > the other hosts on the network. Even if you know their names, there > > won't be any DNS in which you can look up their addresses. > > > > For anyone setting up a new home network, I'd recommend using DHCP. It > > will be a lot simpler in the long run, especially if you start adding > > wireless devices (cell phones, tablets, TV streaming devices, etc.). > > Your router probably already acts as a DHCP server, so all you need to > > do is learn how to configure fixed addresses for specific computers (and > > printers) that want to act like servers. The other devices can just get > > random addresses. Guest machines can just be connected and start working > > without issues. > > Yes, I'd agree with all those arguments for DHCP, which is why I use > it, hence its inclusion in my post at the top of this subthread, and > why I can't understand Gene's aversion to it. But that's all about > configuration, and the quoted comment at the top of this post is AIUI > about /resolving/ hostnames through /etc/hosts.
Resolving hostnames on the local network is simple and reliable when avahi-daemon and linnss-mdns are available. brian@desktop:~$ getent hosts envy4500.local 192.168.7.235 envy4500.local Continually and nanually maintain /etc/hosts? Not in 2022! -- Brian.