On 13 October 2014 21:52, Erik Christiansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, that page does indicate that systemd has no expressed rational > reason for integrating networkd. > Maybe because the alternatives have serious problems in certain use cases? e.g. ifupdown easily gets confused as to what state the interface is in, and network-manager has a lot of unnecessary overhead for server use. I have no problems with people wanting to make things better. If you don't want to use system-networkd however, you can continue using one of the alternatives. I think network-manager will be a better solution for desktops/laptops, for example, as I suspect system-networkd may not have the GUI interface network-manager does (I haven't checked that recently though). -- Brian May <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
