On 04/04/2013 09:52:47 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:17:17 +0200
Bastian Bittorf <bitt...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> > >if you are
> > >really using 'ifconfig', you should better switch now. the
> > >pain will be much worse if you wait again 2 years...
> >
> > In what way? I vaguely recall first hearing about "ip" back under
Red
> > Hat 9, which shipped in 2003. So I've been successfully largely
> > ignoring it for 10 years now. What's queued up to change in the
near
> > future?
>
> i will. there is no work done anymore on ifconfig, even the manpage
> says to switch.
Noting, in passing, that he once again didn't answer my actual
question. Unless "i will" is an answer to "what's queued up to change
in the near future?" But this entire thread has been like that...
Well, if toybox implements ifconfig, there will be work done on
ifconfig.
I won't be switching. And Rob won't be. And Android won't be.
In other words, if you're switching, who cares? If you want an ip
command,
please either write it yourself or pay for it to happen. It's not on
Rob's
agenda at present, and this argument over whether to implement it or
ifconfig
is making no headway and impeding real progress.
This is what I popped in to answer, in a thread I've otherwise largely
lost interest in.
It was never about ifconfig _or_ ip. It was about implementing an ip
interface in addition to the ifconfig that somebody already submitted
and that toolbox already has.
Support for ifconfig was in the first version of the roadmap I checked
in a year ago:
http://landley.net/hg/toybox/rev/639
Support for "ip" still isn't. And nobody other than Bastian's ever
asked for it. (They've asked for things like "freeramdisk" and
"readahead", but not that.)
> every developer in the network world has realized, that doing the
> 'ifconfg/route/arp/netstat'-thingy was a dead-end-street.
As far as I can tell, that problem is only with the net-tools
implementation of
ifconfig. BSD still uses ifconfig, and so does Android.
What exactly is the _problem_? The existing ifconfig works fine. This
is like saying http://nc110.sourceforge.net/ is useless because 1.10
came out in 1996, and it's SO useless that I shouldn't have written a
new implementation of for busybox. Which Denys then _replaced_ with the
1.10 version from 1996 as the default, back before I relaunched
toybox...
http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/busybox/2010-June/072734.html
And I can see why he did it. (I don't agree, but I see why. I would
have extended my version to have the features and optionally the user
interface the other one had. But I wasn't really around for him to
delegate that to, was I?)
But this "Oh no, the code is old! Code RUSTS!" I don't get it. Linux
2.4 doesn't support modern hardware, containers, tickless operation,
sucks at threading and SMP. But if it had decent arm support I expect
android would have been based on it because it ran in a quarter the
memory the current one needs.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
