:: Re: [DNG] simple-netaid-backend deb…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Alessandro Selli
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] simple-netaid-backend debugged.
On 07/03/19 at 23:26, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:
> Alessandro Selli wrote on 8/3/19 9:04 am:
>>   I did not write they are useless.  I wrote that they are obsolete and
>> deprecated.
> Yes. And those terms are badly chosen, because they are neither.

  They are both, and I explained why they are listing some of the
technically compelling reasons they are considered obsolete and
deprecated by an overwhelming majority of people who maintain distributions.

>>> 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.
> Wanting a program to do things is doesn't is plain stupid.

  ip and iw do the "things" (what things?) they were developed to do. 
It's ifconfig and iwconfig which suffer from limitations and shotcomings.

>>   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.
> see above.

  I see you're still stubbornly ignoring facts and fail to explain why.

>>   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?
> I believe

  Technical matters are not a matter of belief.

> I objected to our choice of words,

  You "believe" things you did?  Don't you even know why yourself did
and said things?

> and not your reasons for
> insisting on using those words,

  I have technically proven and linguistically sound reasons to call
those commands what they are, that is obsolete and deprecated, like an
overwhelming majority of technically minded people do.

> or your reasons for wanting these
> programs to not be used.

  I never tried to impose my will on anybody else.  You're doing a
straw-man attack on me.

> Like many people, you are free to use whichever
> programs you may want, and you are free to think that your choice of
> programs for your purposes is the One And True choice, even when it
> isn't. There is no reason for you to go emotional about it.

  You accused me of intentions I never had, and are still failing at
providing with technical reasons why obsolete, nearly unmaintained,
universally deprecated and way outdated commands are to still be used
today when they do not offer any advantage over the current, maintained,
universally available and much more versatile and powerful and still
easy to use commands that have been available for decades.

> The fact remains that ifconfig and iwconfig are neither deprecated nor
> obsolete.

  They both are, and they've been so for many years.  Major
distributions started dropping them from 2014, if not earlier.

Alessandro Selli <alessandroselli@???>
VOIP SIP: dhatarattha@???
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key: