On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote: > > > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit : > > > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat > > > >> and they can become "your" lackeys. > > > > > > > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did > > > > so because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is > > > > libelous and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and > > > > apologize immediately. > > > > > > I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's > > > signature order). I am way beyond soap bubbles. But don't take it > > > personally, it is only politics. > > > > As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its conclusions > > about you both, and I have decided to never give you any help > > whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically. I suspect > > most helpful contributors on this list have already silently decided > > the same, or will do so soon if you continue insulting the Debian > > developers. > > This has already affected my willingness to help people having trouble > with network-mangler. > > For folks with a small SOHO network setup that involves the maximum of > 253 or so maximum addresses, the most dependable intermachine method is > identical /etc/hosts files, combined with an identical /etc/resolv.conf > on all machines. You then setup an eth0 stanza > in /etc/network/interfaces that matches the name assigned to that > machine. Interfaces will look something like this: > ============= > auto lo > > # The loopback network interface > iface lo inet loopback > address 127.0.0.1 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > auto eth0 > > # regular network for coyote.den > iface eth0 inet static > address 192.168.xx.xx > netmask 255.255.255.0 > gateway 192.168.xx.xx > ================= > > Substituting that machines address in place of the xx.xx > Shut down dhcpd as its not needed, nor is network-mangler. > > And the best part? It Just Works(TM). > > But I've caught so much static over preaching about a non-network-mangler > solution that is 90% less trouble to setup that I have given up speaking > up when to me that solution is the ideal solution to their problems. > > So you can ignore me, and I'll ignore you, until you contradict me, > thereby adding to the poor OP's confusion. Where your expertise exceeds > mine, I'll do the same. Fair?
Which "poor OP" are you referring to? It has been a long thread. > > Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I post it > > to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will answer this mail > > with another useless stunt. Please go ahead. network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a lack of any deep understanding of how the software works. /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon? This is 2017. -- Brian.
