CentOS - Mar 2017 - From Networkmanager to self managed configuration files

On 08/03/17 11:10, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 8 March 2017 at 10:58, Giles Coochey <giles at coochey.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/17 10:52, John Hodrien wrote:
>>>
>>> It means you're stuck in your own hand crafted niche.  Which is
fine, but
>>> it's
>>> up to you to maintain the niche, or you find yourself using
obsolete tools
>>> like ifconfig and route.
>>>
>>> I'd argue there's a gulf between keeping things simple and
doing things
>>> your
>>> own way.
>>>
>> I'm sure there are drop in replacements for ifconfig and route, but
even if
>> deprecated I have not needed to revisit that script for many years, so
I'm
>> not changing it.
>> When it does eventually break I have to look at four lines to discover
where
>> the problem might be, I can troubleshoot it by trying to run each line
>> manually and see what is going on.
>>
>> When qw hit a bug in NetworkManager that breaks something specific that
>> you're doing then you can try to raise a bug with upstream, or you
could try
>> to review the thousands of lines of code that make it up and try to fix
the
>> problem yourself.
>>
>> Or perhaps you'll do what I did, remove it and put in a 4 line
script.
>>
>
> That's nice ... but what you've provided is terrible advice that
> doesn't handle a wide range of scenarios such as teaming, bonding,
> vlans, bridging, network interface changes, race conditions of things
> dependent on networking or acting as part of the network.target or
> network-online.target systemd units which declare when network is
> ready ...
>
> If you want to do something unsupportable in any sane environment that
> is on you ... but really please don't suggest to those who don't
know
> better to carry out such activities.
>
I didn't suggest you use anything, you asked me what script I used, I 
gave you that information YMMV.

-- 
Regards,

Giles Coochey
+44 (0) 7584 634 135
+44 (0) 1803 529 451
giles at coochey.net

Did I see an implicit "do as Red Hat says or else" there somewhere?
Not appropriate. Linux is not Windows (yet). In the heat of the moment it may
easily be forgotton that Linux is all about choice. We choose to run CentOS, and
we choose to run it the way we see fit. We appreciate the efforts that go into
the *Community* *Enterprise* OS, and if you have dealt with buggy crap like
Ubuntu or Fedora, you appreciate it even more. This does not imply deference to
upstream.

That statement about "effectively [running] your own Linux
distribution" is scaremongering, at best. If there's one thing I've
learned on this list, it's realizing how many use cases, scenarios and
solutions there are that can make approaching the topic at hand without
prejudice challenging at times.

On 9 March 2017 at 00:54, isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Did I see an implicit "do as Red Hat says or else" there
somewhere? Not appropriate. Linux is not Windows (yet). In the heat of the
moment it may easily be forgotton that Linux is all about choice. We choose to
run CentOS, and we choose to run it the way we see fit. We appreciate the
efforts that go into the *Community* *Enterprise* OS, and if you have dealt with
buggy crap like Ubuntu or Fedora, you appreciate it even more. This does not
imply deference to upstream.
>
> That statement about "effectively [running] your own Linux
distribution" is scaremongering, at best. If there's one thing I've
learned on this list, it's realizing how many use cases, scenarios and
solutions there are that can make approaching the topic at hand without
prejudice challenging at times.
>
You're reaching here.

It's simply there is good advice and sane management practices, and
there's bad advice and approaches to manage systems that have plenty
of clear issues and step way outside of the documented and supported
methods of handling things.

If you want to use a random script that has so many issues it's even
less supportable than the legacy network service, more power to you!
Just don't advise people entering into this area to do that and don't
expect much help from those more knowledgeable in those areas who
spend their own time assisting on the mailing list and IRC if you
insist on jumping off the cliff with your homemade parachute after
people have pointed out that patching it with small bits of cloth
wasn't the best of ideas ...

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, isdtor wrote:
> Did I see an implicit "do as Red Hat says or else" there
somewhere? Not
> appropriate. Linux is not Windows (yet). In the heat of the moment it may
> easily be forgotton that Linux is all about choice. We choose to run
CentOS,
> and we choose to run it the way we see fit. We appreciate the efforts that
> go into the *Community* *Enterprise* OS, and if you have dealt with buggy
> crap like Ubuntu or Fedora, you appreciate it even more. This does not
imply
> deference to upstream.
>
> That statement about "effectively [running] your own Linux
distribution" is
> scaremongering, at best. If there's one thing I've learned on this
list,
> it's realizing how many use cases, scenarios and solutions there are
that
> can make approaching the topic at hand without prejudice challenging at
> times.
I'll obviously argue I wasn't scaremongering.  You can start with
CentOS, and
do anything you like with it, and as I've said, you're absolutely free
to do
that.  But at some point, you have to accept that what you've got left
isn't
CentOS.  If you don't use what the distribution provides, what you're
doing
isn't the distribution.  Given you're getting no formal support on this,
that
possibly means little to you, but don't be surprised by the community
backing
away from providing unofficial support to something that's no longer CentOS.

You see this sort of thing in a more extreme way with things like cPanel.

jh