I find it more frustrating that network configuration tools seem to be added in layer after layer, like with the new netplan took in Ubuntu. To me it seems more complex than it needs to be.
There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
41–50 of 270 posts
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#42"... an ongoing effort to obsolete the old, cross-Unix standard network administration and diagnosis commands of ifconfig, netstat and the like and replace them with fresh new Linux specific things like ss and the ip suite." Old does not mean bad but Linux chooses that path as it moves further away from UNIX and being a Unix-like system in its pursuit to be Windows.
I would like to argue with you, but then again, systemd exists (and is thriving) while being the most windows-like software existing by default on all popular linux distributions.
EDIT: I guess I have to clarify this statement a little; In Windows the concept of "logging" is up to the event manager, this mirrors journalctl. To be more precise they seem to focus on desktop operating systems with an example being the unit file itself: "The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files.", maybe you prefer talking about firewalld and it's "Zones" which are clearly inspired by desktop use. (Laptops more specifically).
There was something that I'm forgetting though, a terminology that was only used by microsoft to describe something and systemd used exactly the same terminology. It was very esoteric terminology though, I'm trying to find a reference.
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ifconfig's output is simply more readable IMO Yes, this is key, and why ip is so terrible for the way I currently work. No doubt I'll have to get used to it, like those stupid biosdevname interfaces. 90% of my machines don't have more than 1 IP per physical interface, the rest are aliases ifconfig outputs clear whitespace, so picking out the specific details of - interface name - ip address Is far easier. I do pref…
to get the gateway: ip route show default > > ifconfig's output is simply more readable IMO I prefer iproute2's terseness.
I'm not sure "terse" is the right adjective. It presents basically the same amount of information as ifconfig (minus the packet counters) and actually adds a few more flags. It's all about the formatting really. Simply adding an empty line between each interface would go a long way. Also starting the line with the interface name instead of the index.
Adding more punctuation to delimit the fields (, : etc...) would be nice too. I mean what the hell:
mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#44When I started learning Linux when it was, I think, 0.99, I appreciated that so many commands where cross-Unix. It was a Unix lookalike. I could watch how something is done on one Unix, type this stuff into my Linux terminal, and get an equivalent result in Linux, and this helped a lot and created a sense of community. Now I see that Linux tears the standards apart, there are more and more obstacles with porting complex applications. More over, we can also see the emergence of "we support Ubuntu only, sorry" mentality - Linux became very diverged. I'm so happy to be using FreeBSD now on all my boxes, with it's init, ifconfig, file system hierarchy.
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tool allows one to manipulate kernel objects more or less 1:1, so documentation and help of 'ip' and 'tc' is adequate enough if you know what those kernel objects are and how they behave, but it won't help if you don't know anything about linux networking or traffic shaping in the first place.
What's the best way to learn these things?
LWN ( https://lwn.net/Kernel/Index/#Networking ), LWN + kernel documentation ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... ) , more LWN + iproute2 source/news/commitlog ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git... and https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git... https://www.netdevconf.org/ )
... and trying them (the features) out. In VMs and in other network simulators. ( http://mininet.org/overview/ comes to mind, but simply using Vagrant / Virtualbox is okay )
Also, networking is very standardized (duh :)), so if you follow network related stuff ( https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/ ), you can sort of get a feel for what might come to the Linux kernel.
LWN is still the best in this regard, because it deals with new developments, so reading the archives will tell you what might be in the kernel.
Furthermore, since nowadays everything is kube-cloud-virtual-container-open-netes-stack, looking at network developments for these technologies will get you in the know. (Seemingly bonkers stuff, like BGP for containers is now bog standard with things like Calico. Running a full switch in kernel with an awesome distributed overlay network for "cloud" without OpenFlow? OVN by OVS got your back. Doing all this fast? DPDK is uber fast, but XDP is just so conveniently clever.)
Plus there's the datacenter networking stuff, like TRILL/SPB ( https://networkingnerd.net/2016/05/11/the-death-of-trill/ ), but those haven't got integrated into the kernel, because the aforementioned Calico, OVN and other overlay stuff.
Oh, and the best way is to keep asking questions!
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#46I am not sure it is such a big deal, the old stuff are good enough for the majority of cases, I reckon. He has probably a good point about performance, but pain versus gain I am not sure it makes a lot of sense, on average.
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#47I've never understood the purpose of IP aliases like the "secondary em0" the author is setting up with systemd.networkd. These aliases are practically useless, you cannot bind() to them without knowing the IP, you cannot use them in firewall rules, you cannot setup dhcp for them etc. What are people using them for?
I'm not sure what the low level difference is between an alias like in the article, or a "eth0:1" type alias (made with ifconfig eth0:1 xx.xx.xx.xx up), but the "eth0:1" type alias seems infinitely more useful.
This is also a major deficiency of the Ubuntu 18.04 netplan implementation, it can only do the systemd.networkd type aliases and not the "eth0:1" type ones. What gives?
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#48"... an ongoing effort to obsolete the old, cross-Unix standard network administration and diagnosis commands of ifconfig, netstat and the like and replace them with fresh new Linux specific things like ss and the ip suite." Old does not mean bad but Linux chooses that path as it moves further away from UNIX and being a Unix-like system in its pursuit to be Windows.
> "Old does not mean bad"
It doesn't automatically mean "good" either.
> "in its pursuit to be Windows"
Would you please elaborate?
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#49While unrelated to subj or that new systemd wave, I want to state that almost all my sysadm skills are lost. Idk who is responsible for this and if they exists, or is it just time going, but I’m not a power user anymore. Long-term skill investments without a profession are so meaningless – ten years and you stare at the screen with no idea what to do. That was hard time and now it is all for nothing.
Re: There are real reasons for Linux to replace ifconfig, netstat, etc
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
to get the gateway: ip route show default > > ifconfig's output is simply more readable IMO I prefer iproute2's terseness.
I'm not sure "terse" is the right adjective. It presents basically the same amount of information as ifconfig (minus the packet counters) and actually adds a few more flags. It's all about the formatting really. Simply adding an empty line between each interface would go a long way. Also starting the line with the interface name instead of the index. Adding more punctuation to delimit the fields (, : etc...) would be…
So glad I'm not the only one with the same criticisms