The 25/02/14, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know;
I'm pretty sure they are. BTW, things are moving fast and the state has already changed since my last check (not so old). > from what I've read, > they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you > can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. > > But then you had to configure it yourself. NetworkManager and ConnMan are the big ones. Wicked (the one I use on my laptop) looks a bit lighter. But none intend advanced, static, and easy text configuration files for admins as usually required for servers. Write your own tool is a bad advice for most people as I would expect either a poor alternative or a lot of work to get a descent one. I think experiented developers already know they can write their own and evaluate how hard it can be. So, they won't wait for this kind of advice on this list to get the job done. ,-p That beeing said, I think I understand why you write that again and again. From what I've read recently, I guess too much people do not clearly understand all of the refinements coming with FOSS in corporation relationships, innovation "mentoring" or software adoption constraints. The cabale remains tempting as it can explain everything. Anyway, systemd-networkd (introduced in systemd-209) is written to fill this gap. Good news. > Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had > nothing to do with each other. I'm sorry. I think I've read that networkd did take inspiration from netctl for the structure of configuration files at some point; not really what I said yesterday (hugh!). Don't even know if it actually was the case. I have to refresh my skills on the topic with a bit more homework, again. Didn't expect things have changed that much in a few time. :-) -- Nicolas Sebrecht
