Hi Andrej, On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 09:02:43PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, at 19:41, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > You're continuing to confirm my pre-existing view that netplan infantilizes > > it's users as you're applying the same thinking to the entire Debian > > community here. > > I don’t think this language is particularly helpful.
I'm sorry you think so. I'm trying my best to represent my current view as accurately as possible so as to give Lukas a tangible way to try and change it. > > In my mind Debian is an operating system for experts (perhaps > > aspiring). Treating users like they are going to hurt themselves if we > > listen to them is not acceptable conduct in this community in my opinion. > > Debian is an operating system for everyone. For experts. For novices. For > non-technical users. In any case, even experts often want to have a > break and have things just work without having to write kilobytes of > config. See that's my own biases shining through :) Ofc. Debian is for everyone. I should have been more clear. When I say this I think mainly of the base system, servers, routers, embedded stuff and the like. Desktops and other environments already made different decisions and I respect that. On a mildly personal note I've just come back from bringing up and running a large event network as part of the NOC team at Hack ma's castle (an Austrian hacker community event). Since someone on the team decieded to use sd-networkd on the gateway (unsuccessfully) my experience in fixing the network gave me a much better idea of where my tangible problems with it's design lie. In short: Networking is complicated. I don't think abstraction helps. Simpler is better. IMO this applies to both sd-networkd and netplan. Don't get me wrong I'm sure both have valid use-cases, unique features or better ergonomics for some users but those aren't arguments for a change in default. This also made me wonder: have any of us here actually been in the trenches of networking like I just experienced? If not I return to the idea of the "ivory tower". > >> IMO, the data is already there in all the different (Mini-)DebConf and > >> email discussion over the past couple of year. If people were just happy > >> with /etc/network/interfaces, we wouldn't have this discussion year after > >> year after year.. > > > The "data" sources you mention are severely biased in one way or > > another. You complain about unusable data above only to suggest even more > > obviously unusable data here. I don't find this very convincing. > > Data point: I’m a previous maintainer of ifupdown. I don’t use it anymore > and don’t think it’s a very good default for Debian these days. I'd love to hear about your perspective and why/where/how ifupdown failed you. I have my own list of gripes with it but I'm still enthusiastic about my prospects of being able to fix them. > >> I'm afraid all of this will just further delay the decision making for > >> another year/Debian release. > > > So what? So far you're the only one complaining about this. What skin do > > you have in the game if we don't move forward on this other than having an > > obviously biased interest in having netplan be a standard? > > Please, can we have no conflict of interest accusations? It's not an accusation, just an observation. I don't resent Lukas doing this. I don't think it's wrong. If netplan was my project you better believe I'd be here doing the same thing. > Others might not complain loudly because they don’t have energy to argue > (like myself). I try not to weight complaints by loudness TBH. A short statement would do just as well. > > Consider that for you time is an ally, being employed to work on this > > (AFAICT?). For the rest of us not so much. Debian is a primarily a > > volunteer project. Please stop pushing for doing things faster. > > I don’t think Lukas is rushing things too much. We should have had this > conversation ages ago. Perhaps I should have started it instead of > resigning as the maintainer back in the day. How late the conversation is doesn't change how long it takes to have it properly. I can tell you for sure that a year or so ago I wouldn't have been involved so things would have been much less complicated ;P --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
