On 9/4/24 17:49, Lukas Märdian wrote: > Netplan is for the average user who googles about "how to configure network > on debian" and ends up with the "4 ways to configure the network" > [4ways] or > even more options in the Debian Reference [debref]:
so, to exaggerate on purpose, netplan is only to simplify the need for documentation? If so, then I'm not convinced that this would make sense adding an abstraction layer for complexity vs. some "simpler documentation". Especially, given that netplan would not be replacing the other $tools at all, so, users will still have the same amount of documentation[*] to navigate to because people using $tool keep using it and continue documenting it. In contrary, following your logic in reality using netplan would be just adding one more tool to be documented. > Now, what configuration does the average user chose, without necessarily > knowing the underlying stack? "Average users" use a desktop and don't have any non-trivial network configuration needs. They are getting network-manager by default since many Debian releases and they don't need to bother with anything else. > With Netplan we could slowly converge to a > set of instructions that work everywhere. While at the same time we could > still > support/provide two modern upstream stacks (NetworkManager & > systemd-networkd) for everybody's liking. I see more value in *removing* ifupdown/ifupdown2/ifupdown-ng in favour of only having network-manager and systemd-networkd (= 2 variants), rather than additionally *adding* netplan to the picture (= 3 variants) for no practical reason. Regards, Daniel
