On 9/4/24 18:00, Lukas Märdian wrote: >> Of course we could. But who would actually care? > > That's exactly the problem!
I don't think so. I still have the impression that netplan wants to fill a whole where in reality there's none. In my experience networking from a systems point of view has drastically simplied and converged in the last decade: you have either a elaborate network setup, thus the admin *does* care and is using either systemd-networkd or network-manager directly - or - you have a very simple one (dhcp and be done with it) and the user *does not* care at all. If I understand you correctly you're trying to make a case for the some inbetween users, that seem to want/need a halfway-elaborate network setup that needs manual tinkering, that they would do by configuring this with the help of a netplan documentation/example, while at the same time not wanting or being able to be bothered by checking either systemd-networkd or network-manager documentation instead. I haven't seen anyone in the wild being in this supposed "middle" group of users that would gain anything by using netplan here. > But we ought to look at the bigger picture! People looking from the outside > in will get very confused by the scattered Debian networking landscape. "wild idea": how about just removing ifupdown/ifupdown2/ifupdown-ng and decluttering/improving documentation instead then? that would reduce complexity and saves everyone much more time than to maintain, document and support netplan. > But in the end we don't want to bloat our base-installation with > NetworkManager and systemd-networkd is not fit to cover the desktop/laptop > usecase. are you talking about the installation media, or the installed system? For the first this doesn't make enough of a difference to trying to micro-optimize anything even if removed (which isn't the case as netplan would still need them), and for the second, if you select a desktop you get network-manager automatically, otherwise ifupdown today or let's say systemd-networkd in the future. So in both cases there's no bloat. In fact, I'd consider at this point netplan to be unnecessary bloat here. > Which one to choose? Well it all depends on the underlying stack, which > the average user might not necessarily know. So it's very confusing. with that argument, let's remove all but GNOME. it's too confusing to have more than one desktop environment. or even more radical: let's remove *all* alternative implementations of anything. then we can have one-tool-one-way super-streamlined documentation for debian (sic!)... sorry but this "unify documentation" argument doesn't checkout in reality. Regards, Daniel
