On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:12 AM Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote:> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:11:04AM +0100, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > > Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking > > script mess, another new project was started instead, called > > systemd-networkd :-) > > Actually, I'm sad that RHEL/CentOS 8 doesn't support > systemd-networkd. It's really nice, especially for really pared down > systems that don't need a lot of extra services like NetworkManager. > But I understand that Red Hat needs to focus its support efforts. >I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing something?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:17:18AM -0500, Mauricio Tavares wrote:> I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why > they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing > something?systemd has several Red Hat employees working on systemd, I believe, but it's not a solely Red Hat product. And according to their documentation and tickets opened about systemd-networkd, they're focusing on a single network infrastructure, NetworkManager. It was available as part of the optional channel in RHEL7 but I guess it caused too much confusion in the market or something. It's still kinda new and I guess having that much churn in your network infrastructure is too much for a enterprise-level OS (given that they'd have to backport fixes rather than bump the systemd version). -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 08:17, Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:12 AM Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:11:04AM +0100, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > > > Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking > > > script mess, another new project was started instead, called > > > systemd-networkd :-) > > > > Actually, I'm sad that RHEL/CentOS 8 doesn't support > > systemd-networkd. It's really nice, especially for really pared down > > systems that don't need a lot of extra services like NetworkManager. > > But I understand that Red Hat needs to focus its support efforts. > > > I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why > they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing > something? >So there are two items of complexity which people have a hard time understanding (both inside and outside of Red Hat). 1. Red Hat is a company of 14,000 people many of which have diverging views on how things should be run and why. This means that you may see 4-5 different tools to fix a problem all of which solve the part that they were originally developed for but not for everyone (mainly because the tool that is solving it for everyone is still not out of design yet.) 2. systemd is maintained by multiple companies with divergent interests in how and where to solve things. It is also not a monolithic tool but a 'hurd' of services which all do some vital plumbing. Some of that plumbing works for some things but not all things any more than you put the same pipe under your kitchen sink as your bathroom as the industrial cleaner.. [well you can but it will blow up somewhere.] This leads to a lot of 'but I thought Red Hat was doing X' which is true but 'Red Hat is also doing Y' or Z and the same for systemd and related groups. Any time you have more than 4 of anything you will start getting factorial number of solutions. (4 sysadmins, 4 developers, 4 managers etc.. at 5 you end up with 120 different solutions for some reason.)> _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Stephen J Smoogen.
Le 11/02/2020 ? 16:27, Stephen John Smoogen a ?crit?:> 1. Red Hat is a company of 14,000 people many of which have diverging views > on how things should be run and why. This means that you may see 4-5 > different tools to fix a problem all of which solve the part that they were > originally developed for but not for everyone (mainly because the tool that > is solving it for everyone is still not out of design yet.) > > 2. systemd is maintained by multiple companies with divergent interests in > how and where to solve things. It is also not a monolithic tool but a > 'hurd' of services which all do some vital plumbing. Some of that plumbing > works for some things but not all things any more than you put the same > pipe under your kitchen sink as your bathroom as the industrial cleaner.. > [well you can but it will blow up somewhere.] > > This leads to a lot of 'but I thought Red Hat was doing X' which is true > but 'Red Hat is also doing Y' or Z and the same for systemd and related > groups. Any time you have more than 4 of anything you will start getting > factorial number of solutions. (4 sysadmins, 4 developers, 4 managers etc.. > at 5 you end up with 120 different solutions for some reason.)As much as I love CentOS (been using it since 4.x), some days I just miss the bone-headed approach of Slackware and FreeBSD. Just edit /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf or /etc/rc.conf and you're done. :o) -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'?glise - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info at microlinux.fr T?l. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12