Stephan Seitz <stse+deb...@rootsland.net> writes: > Am Di, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:54:47 +0200 schrieb Lukas Märdian: ... >>Using Debian should NOT feel like using different distros. We want > > Sorry, I call this bullshit. I’m using Debian exactly because it feels > different like other distros. There wouldn’t be a need for Debian if not.
You seem to have read that almost exactly backwards. What Lukas was saying was that Debian on an embedded machine should feel like Debian on a cloud instance, and like Debian on a mobile phone ... If the manual has to say "If you're using this flavour of Debian, you're probably using that flavour of underlying network stack, which means you need this command to do X" then it starts to feel like each scenario is as different as e.g. RedHat vs. Arch. The default way to do things should be something where the manual can just describe the one thing, and it'll work everywhere, so that one can feel at home in any Debian install. Of course, if you know you personally only ever need/want ifupdown you can cheerfully ignore the default, whatever it is. I suspect having something that's agnostic about the underlying implementation as our default would be rather better for the non-systemd options that people care about, so if you want to keep on using ifupdown into the future, then having netplan as our default configuration layer would at least ensure that people would run tests against netplan's use of ifupdown, which I suspect is going to be more testing than would happen if networkd was the default. Also, networkd doesn't support non-Linux and non-systemd systems AFAIK, so there are definitely going to be more caveats in the documentation, and Debian's going to feel that much less universal, if we settle on networkd as the default for this. Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
