On 14.10.14 09:50, Brian May wrote:
On 13 October 2014 21:52, Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> 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.
OK, granted, it is doubtful that _anything_ could be worse than network-manager, so replacing that is de facto an improvement, until proven otherwise. Every time I forget to zap it during an install, it prevents networking operating properly, and has to go before the host becomes useful. If only all fixes were so easy. On the other hand, in the last quarter century, I've found traditional networking 100% reliable and easy to use, on HP-UX, Solaris (Sparc & x86), and several linux distros, both domestically and administering up to a dozen workstations. It is possible that I have never suffered ifup state confusion simply because I always use "ifconfig -a" to check interface state, simply through habit. (And if I'm not sure what I'm facing, then "/etc/init.d/networking restart" is zero risk in 99% of cases - a server with a single interface, which is in need of TLC.) So, after more than a quarter century in industry, I find that there is really nothing requiring fixing.
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).
Ah, if system-networkd is genuinely just an alternative separate daemon, fully interchangeable with current services, then the new offering isn't harmfully integrated, and can freely be received on its merits. And if it supplants network-manager, then it is certain to be well received after it has been tried, I expect. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page says "In version 209, networkd was integrated", so the "monolithic monster" raises its ugly head, perhaps due to nothing more than misleading wording? If the developers are working to even a couple of pages of product specification, listing even the architectural goals and subsystem interfaces, then not only would developers have a clear view of the intended outcome, but prospective users could share in the clarity, and fear would abate if the architecture is unix compatible. I found little enlightenment here: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.service.htm... Erik -- Nigeria's toll remained unchanged at eight dead from 20 cases. WHO has said it will be declared Ebola-free on October 20 if it has no further cases. - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-11/ebola-death-toll-passes-4000-who-says/...