On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
do not install servers if you are refuse to think really!
Why create GUI installers then?. Let's just package a tarball and let users unpack it manually.
In fact, are you advocating for the removal of system-config-network-tui ? how about removal of all non-modal text editors like joe ? let's force everyone to "think" in 'vi'...
*sarcasm* FC
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:42:44AM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
do not install servers if you are refuse to think really!
Why create GUI installers then?. Let's just package a tarball and let users unpack it manually.
In fact, are you advocating for the removal of system-config-network-tui ? how about removal of all non-modal text editors like joe ? let's force everyone to "think" in 'vi'...
Unfortunately, according to folks who have more knowledge than I do about these things, in later versions of Fedora, and therefore, probably the next version or so of RH, just manually editing sysconfig/network-scripts will overlook some necessary parts. system-config-network-tui may wind up becoming necessary. Through RH 5.x it was enough to manually edit the necessary files.
However, in later versions of Fedora, this may cause errors because there will be some other scripts or files elsewhere, that system-config-network-tui manipulates. Meanwhile, Fedora is trying to make NetworkManager the default interface handler, (and there is apparently a command line version.)
I know I'm old and cranky, but to me, it just seems like those meddlesome kids with their newfangled smartphones and touch screens are taking over development, and that many of them just don't care about the sysadmin portion of use.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Scott Robbins scottro@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Unfortunately, according to folks who have more knowledge than I do about these things, in later versions of Fedora, and therefore, probably the next version or so of RH, just manually editing sysconfig/network-scripts will overlook some necessary parts. system-config-network-tui may wind up becoming necessary.
Good news!.
My point is simple: I install the base config. I'm in text mode. I need networking to work to install extra packages and begin setting up my system, users, permissions, packages, etc. I have no problem doing that manually AFTER I get the system up and running (and by "running" I mean 'having network connectivity'). Having me edit config files manually is an *annoyance*.
ONCE I get networking up and running. I have no problem editing config files, because by then, with networking enabled, I'd have installed my favorite tools (joe editor etc).
My point being that if the networking stack is part of the base OS install, so should be system-config-network-tui
FC
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:55:07AM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
My point being that if the networking stack is part of the base OS install, so should be system-config-network-tui
No. A "tui" is a pretty user interface. It's not necessary for the functioning nor configuration of the operating system; it's a "ease of use" tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
In Other Words: it's an optional component.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:55:07AM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
My point being that if the networking stack is part of the base OS install, so should be system-config-network-tui
No. A "tui" is a pretty user interface. It's not necessary for the functioning nor configuration of the operating system; it's a "ease of use" tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
In Other Words: it's an optional component.
Yes, let's go back to the days of typing the boot code in hex to get the system started. It's all optional.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:10:47AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:55:07AM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
My point being that if the networking stack is part of the base OS install, so should be system-config-network-tui
No. A "tui" is a pretty user interface. It's not necessary for the functioning nor configuration of the operating system; it's a "ease of use" tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
In Other Words: it's an optional component.
Yes, let's go back to the days of typing the boot code in hex to get the system started. It's all optional.
That's a non-sequitor.
If anything, a "tui" _is_ closer to boot strapping by hand entering hex. It's a user interfce. A modern machine doesn't need assistance in booting. If you do it properly it also doesn't need assistance in network configuration. It "just works".
If you were going to argue that "text editors should be optional by this argument" then you'd have a really good point. Indeed I might agree with that. Counter argument: at least one text editor ("vi"?) is pretty much a BAU tool on every machine, so it makes sense to include it. system-config-network-tui is not a BAU tool; it doesn't fill the same gap.
Remember the "E" in RHEL. Es (in my place we have around 40,000 RHEL installs) configure networking during the build phase. Our standard install doesn't include this unnecessary component.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
Remember the "E" in RHEL. Es (in my place we have around 40,000 RHEL installs) configure networking during the build phase. Our standard install doesn't include this unnecessary component.
OK I'm a SOHO with a single server trying to setup a VM. What you're saying is that RHEL/CentOS should not care about my needs because there's a Good Reason(TM) for the way things currently are.
FC
On 26/07/2012 16:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
Remember the "E" in RHEL. Es (in my place we have around 40,000 RHEL installs) configure networking during the build phase. Our standard install doesn't include this unnecessary component.
OK I'm a SOHO with a single server trying to setup a VM. What you're saying is that RHEL/CentOS should not care about my needs because there's a Good Reason(TM) for the way things currently are.
We won't have this problem with IPv6...
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
Remember the "E" in RHEL. Es (in my place we have around 40,000 RHEL installs) configure networking during the build phase. Our standard install doesn't include this unnecessary component.
OK I'm a SOHO with a single server trying to setup a VM. What you're saying is that RHEL/CentOS should not care about my needs because there's a Good Reason(TM) for the way things currently are.
Basically, small environments will/should have DHCP service so you don't do individual interface configuration at all (or you configure the DHCP server to give a known IP to your MAC address if you need that) and larger ones will need something that can be automated. So even though I agree with you strongly that there should be a simple text mode fill-in-the-form way to set up an interface that hides the magic OS-specific script hints, I understand why nobody considers it important. So my practical advice is to get a SOHO router that does DHCP if you don't already have one, and if you do have one, configure it to give out the IP you want instead of fighting with the Centos setup.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
So my practical advice is to get a SOHO router that does DHCP if you don't already have one, and if you do have one, configure it to give out the IP you want instead of fighting with the Centos setup.
I agree in principle. But my personal experience led me to have static routing on my home LAN.
If I enable DHCP I end up not knowing what IP address a 'new device' just plugged into the network has, at any given time.
DHCP gives "initial" convenience, for "long term hassle". (say you want to telnet-in to your ethernet enabled media player)
FC
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
So my practical advice is to get a SOHO router that does DHCP if you don't already have one, and if you do have one, configure it to give out the IP you want instead of fighting with the Centos setup.
I agree in principle. But my personal experience led me to have static routing on my home LAN.
If I enable DHCP I end up not knowing what IP address a 'new device' just plugged into the network has, at any given time.
Every DHCP server should have a way to configure a fixed IP address to be given out to a specified ethernet MAC address. My advice was to learn and use that way.
DHCP gives "initial" convenience, for "long term hassle". (say you want to telnet-in to your ethernet enabled media player)
No, DHCP will do what you tell it to do. The choice is whether you want to learn the quirks of configuring every device/OS that you might use on your network or the quirks of the one DHCP server.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:44:20PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
DHCP gives "initial" convenience, for "long term hassle". (say you want to telnet-in to your ethernet enabled media player)
Like my tivo? host tivo { hardware ethernet 00:11:d9:0b:c3:a4; fixed-address 10.0.0.144; }
Or other appliance devices? host wii { hardware ethernet 00:1f:32:73:c6:a7; fixed-address 10.0.0.153; }
host printer { hardware ethernet 00:1b:a9:22:21:89; fixed-address 10.0.0.10; }
Personally I have my own config file: MACHINE 10.0.0.10 ; 00:1b:a9:22:21:89 ; printer ; Brother MFC-9120CN MACHINE 10.0.0.144 ;!00:11:d9:0b:c3:a4 ; tivo ; TiVo MACHINE 10.0.0.153 ;!00:1f:32:73:c6:a7 ; wii ;
From that I generate my dhcp, DNS, rDNS, IPv6 DNS (except where the MAC
begins with !) and IPv6 rDNS values.
% ping tivo PING tivo (10.0.0.144) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from tivo (10.0.0.144): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.08 ms 64 bytes from tivo (10.0.0.144): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.505 ms ^C
% ping6 printer PING printer(printer) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from printer: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.09 ms 64 bytes from printer: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.370 ms ^C
I use a CentOS machine as my dhcp server. The same can be done on most SOHO routers via the admin GUI.
On 07/26/2012 04:44 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
I agree in principle. But my personal experience led me to have static routing on my home LAN.
And you chose not to setup networking at install time ? Had you done that, you would not be in this situation.
A bare minimal install is targeted at people who know what they are doing and will make decisions with that level of situational comprehension backing them up.
If you really dont know what you are doing : install a more complete system and the tools will be available.
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:55:07 AM Fernando Cassia wrote:
My point is simple: I install the base config. I'm in text mode. I need networking to work to install extra packages and begin setting up my system, users, permissions, packages, etc. I have no problem doing that manually AFTER I get the system up and running (and by "running" I mean 'having network connectivity'). Having me edit config files manually is an *annoyance*.
The way it's supposed to be done is to set up networking during install. The GUI installer has a button, that is clearly labeled, during install. You set it up to connect automatically, and be active for all users, and it starts even in text mode during boot up.
The text installer is effectively deprecated; if you want/need to do, say, a serial console install you're supposed to do a VNC install and run the GUI remotely over a VNC session (the serial console/text mode handler will do enough network configuration to get the GUI installer running over VNC).
Barring that, if the 'Desktop' package set is installed (I last did this with 6.1, so it may be different now) with certain server packages also installed (no, I don't have a rigorous package set to quote, that's left as an exercise for the reader as I'm not going to do your homework for you on that one.....) the system will come up in runlevel 3, but will bring up a text mode firstboot that includes a text mode network configurator. While it would be interesting to see the exact package set that triggers this, I have not had the time nor the motivation to do that myself, just going by what happened when I installed some boxes a while back.
On 26/07/2012 15:50, Scott Robbins wrote:
Unfortunately, according to folks who have more knowledge than I do about these things, in later versions of Fedora, and therefore, probably the next version or so of RH, just manually editing sysconfig/network-scripts will overlook some necessary parts. system-config-network-tui may wind up becoming necessary. Through RH 5.x it was enough to manually edit the necessary files. However, in later versions of Fedora, this may cause errors because there will be some other scripts or files elsewhere, that system-config-network-tui manipulates. Meanwhile, Fedora is trying to make NetworkManager the default interface handler, (and there is apparently a command line version.) I know I'm old and cranky, but to me, it just seems like those meddlesome kids with their newfangled smartphones and touch screens are taking over development, and that many of them just don't care about the sysadmin portion of use.
Interestingly, even when I use system-config-network-tui (at least on CentOS 6.2) I still had to manually edit the ONBOOT network parameter in /etc/sysconfig for my Ethernet to be enabled at startup.
Not sure if there is something in the menu system that would do that for me...
-
Fernando Cassia -
Giles Coochey -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Scott Robbins -
Stephen Harris