On 07/03/19 at 22:18, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote: >
> Alessandro Selli wrote on 8/3/19 8:05 am:
>> On 07/03/19 at 21:22, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:
>>> Alessandro Selli wrote on 8/3/19 6:49 am:
>>>> Next improvement would be using current commands (ip and iw) in place
>>>> of the obsolete and deprecated ones, i.e. ifconfig and iwconfig:
>>> The terms "obsolete" and "deprecated" are badly chosen, since the
>>> programs ifconfig and iwconfig are neither.
>> Yes, they are. They are pending removal from several (all?) major
>> distributions, some already removed them years ago, and they receive
>> little development, mostly just security patches.
> ifconfig and iwconfig are useful programs.
I did not write they are useless. I wrote that they are obsolete and
> They work well without
> needing constant development; security patches are good.
They are limited, they suffer shortcomings, they are not getting new
code to keep in pace with modern networking evolution. ifconfig does
not handle well multiple ip's to the same interface, is limited to
32-bit counters when the kernel has long been using 64 bit counters,
does not support/detect the latest queue disciplines, they are stuck to
old networking APIs that are ill suited to handle tunneling, VLAN,
traffic shaping, control and security extensions and many features that
are key to such things as Software Defined Networking.
>>> You may well have your
>>> reasons to like other programs to achieve the functions offered by
>>> ifconfig and iwconfig, but that does not make ifconfig and iwconfig be
>>> neither obsolete nor deprecated.
>> They are both, and I provided with pointers to explain why they are.
>> You are of course free to ignore facts. We do live in a free society.
> "facts" ??
> It is a fact that ifconfig and iwconfig are useful programs.
Again, I did not write they are useless. They still are useful if you
only you do basic networking stuff (though they are mot more useful than
the new tools at that). But they lack support for the most modern and
advanced features of the Linux kernel networking stack.
> They work
> well without needing constant development;
They lack support for advanced features that have been present in the
kernel for many years because nobody bothered to update them. New
development all goes into ip and iw.
> security patches are good.
That's the reason they have not yet been dropped by many
distributions, even though all major ones no longer depend on them for
anything critical, like boot time networking configuration (Debian took
them away from sysv init scripts before they switched to systemd).
These are facts.
Now, other than emotional, personal and irrational reasons, what
technical motives push you to still use those old, obsolete, limited and
deprecated tools when you've been having available newer ones that are
much superior and are just as easy to use?
Alessandro Selli <alessandroselli@???>
VOIP SIP: dhatarattha@???
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key:
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: