> What people are you talking about? People that maintain software. > Anyone who's on a payroll is liable if they don't upgrade systems when they go out of su

> What people are you talking about? People that maintain software. > Anyone who's on a payroll is liable if they don't upgrade systems when they go out of support. Yes. Let's make that process easier. > Did ifconfig foresee bridge interfaces, bond interfaces, vLANs etc? No, that's precisely why I wrote the comment you're replying to. Yet people still use ifconfig, and wonder why the results don't make sense with their vlanned bonded interface. > It's not an evolution of ifconfig, it's an entirely different thing. Yes, agreed completely. But if we got away from scraping we could have added them a lot more gently. > There would've been no way to keep any kind of backwards compatibility with ifconfig Disagree. We can come up with a design here but I don't feel like you're actually responding to anything I write so I don't wish to do so. > there was no reason to keep the name To this day people are still scraping ifconfig and wondering why the results are bad.