On 07.03.14 at 12:28, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> >
> > I've had a quick look at systemd-networkd, and I don't think it would be
> > significantly different to set up than netctl in your case. I think the
> > problem
> > was one of theory: I don't know how much reading you've done, but you need
> > to
On Friday 07 Mar 2014 12:28:56 arnaud gaboury wrote:
> I read a lot, especially when it comes to networking. As for me, it is
> the trickiest part of administrating my machine.
Yeah, networking can get complex very quickly. (I'm by no means an expert
either!)
> I found many posts
> asking help a
>
> I've had a quick look at systemd-networkd, and I don't think it would be
> significantly different to set up than netctl in your case. I think the
> problem
> was one of theory: I don't know how much reading you've done, but you need
> to understand some theory of the networking stack, network
On Thursday 06 Mar 2014 23:46:59 arnaud gaboury wrote:
> I finally managed to boot the container with a working network and a
> static IP. I only used netctl, as systemd-networkd is still a mistery
> to me.
[...]
> It lacks in
> fact a good example, from the container creation to the network setup.
On 06/03/14 05:46 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
>
> I finally managed to boot the container with a working network and a
> static IP. I only used netctl, as systemd-networkd is still a mistery
> to me.
>
> I am not a dev and thus can not contribute in a efficient manner.
> Nevertheless, I will write
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On 05/03/14 04:45 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
>>
>> I just want to share my experience. Some parts of this tool have a
>> zero level documentation and are much more too complicated, especially
>> whith no clear manuals.
>
> Can you point out one
On 05/03/14 04:45 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
>
> I just want to share my experience. Some parts of this tool have a
> zero level documentation and are much more too complicated, especially
> whith no clear manuals.
Can you point out one of these parts? systemd-networkd does not have
zero documentat
I am sorry, my goal is not to start a new flame about systemd. I am
very happy Arch was one of the first distro to make it default. This
is a wonderful tool.
I just want to share my experience. Some parts of this tool have a
zero level documentation and are much more too complicated, especially
whi
On 05/03/14 04:27 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Mario Rugiero wrote:
>> Daniel is right. netctl and systemd-networkd are two different things.
>>
>
> Yes, for sure. Let's take a bet : netctl will one day be "obsoleted",
> no upstream, and replaced entirely by netwo
>
> You're welcome to contribute to the documentation. I think the
> documentation is a significant improvement over what existed for the
> previous stack of technologies systemd is replacing.
I often write/modify some parts of Arch Wiki, and believe me, the day
I will have a clean set up for a co
I agree, arnaud. The thing is, netctl is an Arch specific that exists since
before networkd was even a plan, IIRC. I don't know what will happen in the
end, but I'm always inclined to prefer an upstream solution, so my guess is
Arch will do the same.
2014-03-05 18:27 GMT-03:00 arnaud gaboury :
>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Mario Rugiero wrote:
> Daniel is right. netctl and systemd-networkd are two different things.
>
Yes, for sure. Let's take a bet : netctl will one day be "obsoleted",
no upstream, and replaced entirely by networl@.service and networkd.
Want to bet ? These two ser
Daniel is right. netctl and systemd-networkd are two different things.
2014-03-05 17:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Micay :
> On 05/03/14 03:22 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced
> > user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with
On 05/03/14 03:22 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced
> user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with a clean setting
> environment and no major breakage.
>
> I am a great fan of systemd functionallities, but I waste my time t
On 05/03/14 at 09:22pm, arnaud gaboury wrote:
Hi,
I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced
user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with a clean setting
environment and no major breakage.
I am a great fan of systemd functionallities, but I waste my time the
past tw
Hi,
I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced
user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with a clean setting
environment and no major breakage.
I am a great fan of systemd functionallities, but I waste my time the
past two weeks setting up a working network on a system
16 matches
Mail list logo
