[CentOS] wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on boot]

Thu Dec 10 21:56:34 UTC 2015
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

Warren Young wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:55 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into the
>>>> development process
>>> If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's hard to
>>> stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The development process is
>>> conducted in the open for a reason.
>> I don't see that as going "out of my way". Let's put it this way: how
>> many times have folks on the development side poked their nose in here
>> - the general redhat list is pretty dead - and asked anything?
> So…you want veto power over Fedora?  You want every proposed change to
> cross your desk for a yea/nay?

Beg pardon? Why are you caricaturing what I said? I don't believe any of
us who are complaining are talking about every small change; rather, the
major ones.

As a lesser example, I just *adore* the new ethernet names - NOT. Breaks
scripts, makes it all more difficult, not to mention *so* much easier to
guess, when you've debugging a box and your organization has hardware from
many OEMs. What was wrong with eth0, or even em1? Why go to Sun naming
conventions? Maybe it helps EEs, but not sysadmins.

Please, though, that naming is *not* the point of the thread.
> What if the Fedora project gatewayed the low-traffic development mailing
> list to this one, so that you don’t even have *that* barrier to
> participation?  Now ask yourself: what user-visible changes do you expect
> in the world afterward?

Why not what was suggested, a summary every month or three? How about
sending announcements?
> People give Poettering a lot of static, but the fact is, he Gets. Stuff.
> Done.  If you want different stuff done, you’re going to have to make that
> happen somehow.  Shouted complaints from a soapbox don’t compile.

Which a vast number of us strongly opposed, but were not listened to. That
stuff is fine for a desktop, but who *cares* How Fast a *server* Shuts
Down? And coming up - hell, damn HP server take for-bloody-*ever* with
their firmware, init V is faster than their firmware.
> And don’t play the “underfunded government agency” card.  LANL, LLBL,
> ORNL, NASA, USGS…all have given back lots of code to the open source
> world.  As well they should, because they derive an awful lot of benefit
> from that world.

May be, but my federal agency is at *least* 5% under what we were getting
in 2003, and my manager, who's working with another Institute about 2/3rds
of his time, and I, and another admin have to manage over 170 servers,
workstations, and clusters, some with special software, and ranging in age
from just bought to 2007 (I think there may be a workstation or 3 older),
and some of which we haven't managed to get the owners to allow us to get
off CentOS 5....
> I’m not against your basic position, Mark.  I, too, have shaken my head in
> dismay at several of the desktop-focused behaviors in recent versions of
> CentOS.[*]  I think where we actually differ is that I realize that I have
> no right to complain all that loudly about them, because I have the means
> to change them, but do not.

And I ask permission from my fed manager to put in a ticket with upstream
(which reminds me, I need to ask about putting one in for those docs with
links to google ads).
> Partly that’s because of differing priorities, partly it’s out of rational
> self-interest (i.e. I know how many OS forks fizzle) and yes, it’s partly
> just laziness.  But there’s that difference: I know why I’m not out there
> trying to change it.
> What are your reasons?
Lack of time, as I've indicated.
> [*] My favorite fumble is the one where a 2-NIC box with one DHCP
> interface and one static will swap the configurations silently when you
> boot with only the DHCP cable plugged in.  Because *obviously* you want
> the static IP to be available all the time, right?  This is great for wifi
> + Ethernet laptops, where you want the static IP to move when you plug the
> wired LAN cable in, but it doesn’t work out so great for servers where the
> DHCP NIC is normally disconnected, and exists only so the boots on the
> ground can move the cable in an emergency to reestablish the Internet link
> after they roached the LAN config somehow.  This behavior means the broken
> static IP moves to the secondary NIC, where it remains broken.  Solution:
> Plug both network cables in so NetworkManager doesn’t get Clever.™

Oh, I remember when you couldn't be sure, pre-NM, what would be eth0,
until you put the MAC address in....