7 ms·

>The command for bringing up a network device is now ip link set dev eth1 up vs the older ifconfig eth1 up. Does this really look like progress? I mean... what

by jchw 6y ago

>The command for bringing up a network device is now ip link set dev eth1 up vs the older ifconfig eth1 up. Does this really look like progress? I mean... what does progress look like? The old syntax is less words, but it's still something you have to memorize. Why is this new syntax worse? FWIW, I believe the newer syntax more closely resembles what you have with Cisco network equipment. It also supports newer functionality like net namespaces, and uses newer kernel interfaces. None of those advantages are mentioned in the article that I can see... >autoconf has its warts This is the single most charitable interpretation of autoconf's problems I've heard in my life. > in fact according to this[1], meson authors claimed it to be one of their goals to force users to have a bleeding edge version of python3 installed so it can be universally assumed as a given. > [1]: https://kevstras.com/programming/2017/12/18/meson.html https://kevstras.com/programming/2017/12/18/meson.html I tried and was unable to figure out what they mean by that. Am I stupid or does that article not say that? > Built with debug information, it takes up 434 MB of my harddisk space as of version 3.9.3. Then... don't build it with debug information? > It's primary raison-d'etre is its support for the Microsoft (TM) Visual Studio (R) (TM) solution files, so Windows (TM) people can compile stuff from source with a few clicks. It exists because it was created to be the build system for a specific project. I don't even know if it began life with Visual C++ project generation support. -- All in all this feels like run-of-the-mill cynicism. Some valid points but a complete failure to acknowledge why things are the way they are. Some days I wish HN had a downvote button.

pmarin 6y ago
>FWIW, I believe the newer syntax more closely resembles what you have with Cisco network equipment. What has to do the Cisco network equipment with Linux? >It also supports newer functionality like net namespaces, and uses newer kernel interfaces. Why all the BSD’s do similar things without changing the user interface? >None of those advantages are mentioned in the article that I can see... Because he linked directly the Poettering’s article explaining all you said.
- jchw 6y ago
  >What has to do the Cisco network equipment with Linux? What must it have to do with Linux? It's industry-standard networking equipment. Is that not a decent enough reason to take inspiration? Network professionals already know Cisco. >Why All the BSD’s do similar things without changing the user interface? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Linux isn't a BSD, and it isn't run like one. The only positive thing I can say is, if you prefer the way *BSD is it remains a completely reasonable option in 2020. > Because he linked directly the Poettering’s article explaining all you said. And promptly disregarded all of it, which does not make matters any better for him to be honest.
josephcsible 6y ago
> Why is this new syntax worse? The question is, how is it better? When you have something that works, replacing it with something that's just not worse is unnecessary churn and work for everyone. It shouldn't be replaced unless its replacement is somehow better. > It also supports newer functionality like net namespaces, and uses newer kernel interfaces. Why couldn't these have just been added to ifconfig? Surely it could have been ported to the new kernel interfaces. As for features like net namespaces, the syntax should have been added in a backwards-compatible way instead of rewriting it all.
- jchw 6y ago
  You could ask the same questions about any user interface change. Surely you can just kept grafting new limbs onto existing bodies, but a command like ip actually does make sense when you look at the breadth of things jammed into the new command structure. The article we’re talking about questions what “progress” is and points out things that actually have serious advantages, often technical in some regard, but then disregards those advantages and talks about minor inconveniences like 70 MB disk space footprints and a couple new commands to remember.
- yencabulator 6y ago
  Show me two IP addresses on one interface with ifconfig. No, alias interfaces do not count.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    I acknowledge that that's a limitation of ifconfig today. My point was that we should have just modified ifconfig instead of completely replacing it with an incompatible new tool.
    - yencabulator 6y ago
      The "we" who did the work didn't consider that a good route, and wanted to create something much more powerful.

by jchw 6y ago

pmarin 6y ago

>FWIW, I believe the newer syntax more closely resembles what you have with Cisco network equipment. What has to do the Cisco network equipment with Linux? >It also supports newer functionality like net namespaces, and uses newer kernel interfaces. Why all the BSD’s do similar things without changing the user interface? >None of those advantages are mentioned in the article that I can see... Because he linked directly the Poettering’s article explaining all you said.

jchw 6y ago
>What has to do the Cisco network equipment with Linux? What must it have to do with Linux? It's industry-standard networking equipment. Is that not a decent enough reason to take inspiration? Network professionals already know Cisco. >Why All the BSD’s do similar things without changing the user interface? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Linux isn't a BSD, and it isn't run like one. The only positive thing I can say is, if you prefer the way *BSD is it remains a completely reasonable option in 2020. > Because he linked directly the Poettering’s article explaining all you said. And promptly disregarded all of it, which does not make matters any better for him to be honest.

josephcsible 6y ago

> Why is this new syntax worse? The question is, how is it better? When you have something that works, replacing it with something that's just not worse is unnecessary churn and work for everyone. It shouldn't be replaced unless its replacement is somehow better. > It also supports newer functionality like net namespaces, and uses newer kernel interfaces. Why couldn't these have just been added to ifconfig? Surely it could have been ported to the new kernel interfaces. As for features like net namespaces, the syntax should have been added in a backwards-compatible way instead of rewriting it all.

jchw 6y ago
You could ask the same questions about any user interface change. Surely you can just kept grafting new limbs onto existing bodies, but a command like ip actually does make sense when you look at the breadth of things jammed into the new command structure. The article we’re talking about questions what “progress” is and points out things that actually have serious advantages, often technical in some regard, but then disregards those advantages and talks about minor inconveniences like 70 MB disk space footprints and a couple new commands to remember.
yencabulator 6y ago
Show me two IP addresses on one interface with ifconfig. No, alias interfaces do not count.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  I acknowledge that that's a limitation of ifconfig today. My point was that we should have just modified ifconfig instead of completely replacing it with an incompatible new tool.
  - yencabulator 6y ago
    The "we" who did the work didn't consider that a good route, and wanted to create something much more powerful.