Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote:
> William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
>
> I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more
> desktop-targeted to me. The network script sets the domain name
> and bonding, dhcpcd script starts dhcpcd (which can control more than
> a single interface) and wpa_supplicant script is responsible for wifi.
I'm with nightmorph: we should have exactly one way to configure
networking (i.e. exactly one syntax).
That said, switching to newnet would be a huge mess for everybody
who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual,
as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they
configure their nets (people don't like that kind of stuff if the
machine is 400 miles away); they would also have to find a way to
build their setups in the new "language". Servers tend to have
more complicated setups network-wise than workstations (think
firewalls, VPN endpoint, traffic observation, ...).
So we would make things more complicated for a large user base
for the benefit of desktop users who can't get DHCP/Wifi to work
with oldnet. I doubt the latter is a larger group than the
former.
Regards,
Tobias
--
panic("%s: CORRUPTED BTREE OR SOMETHING", __FUNCTION__);
linux-2.6.6/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c
