Will there be a point in time when distributions agree on how to handle networking?
Posted by mb2m@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 17 comments
There are way too many variants for my taste. Ubuntu favours netplan in servers but not in desktop. I don’t know if this also applies to other Debian based distros. Red Hat is now using NetworkManager bundled with whatever else is needed to get this working. Then there is still stuff in /etc/networking oder /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts in use from time to time. I’m not even talking about dhclient, cloud-init and other tools that do parts of the heavy lifting. When configuring something like search domains it seems like trial and error to get this done persistently.
Isn’t most of the networking basics the same since the 80s or is there a real reason on all this clutter?
abotelho-cbn@reddit
NetworkManager is the current standard. Don't kid yourself lol
Fenguepay@reddit
which probably explains why there is not one standard
Slight_Manufacturer6@reddit
It’s all the same underneath. It doesn’t matter how it is managed.
Different devices have different configuration needs like a laptop is likely to need WiFi but you almost never would need that on a server.
Even if they suddenly all agreed, somebody else would come along and find a way to do it that they think is better… some will agree and switch and others will disagree. Then someone else will come along with a third option. That is the beauty of open source.
We can’t even agree as a people what it means to be a good or bad person. How are we going to agree on something as subjective as how to configure a network?
TheOgGhadTurner@reddit
This. At its basic level it sends 0s and 1s from point a to point b with some security stuff somewhere between.
abotelho-cbn@reddit
That has to be the most pointless simplification I've ever read.
TheOgGhadTurner@reddit
You’re a pointless simplification
abotelho-cbn@reddit
👏
TheOgGhadTurner@reddit
00100011 11110000 10011111 10010110 10010101
abotelho-cbn@reddit
00100011 11110000 10011111 10010010 10101001
Peetz0r@reddit
Most desktop-oriented distro's use NetworkManager. Because it deals well with moving around different wifi networks and integrates well across all the major Desktop Environments.
For server-oriented distros, there are some differences. But if often barely matters. You just set your static IP once and that's it. The differences usually boil down to 'how do you manage configuration' and is not limited to just network configuration.
For routers and such, things get a lot more different. But that's where you usually spend time learning all the details and/or you use something specific for the job like OpenWRT or VyOS or OPNsense (technically not Linux but still).
Hanzerik307@reddit
On my server (Debian) I prefer to setup and configure systemd-networkd. Very simple to setup a config file. Desktops that don't need anything special, I just go with OS defaults. Anything needing static IP I just setup on my router.
Hobthrust@reddit
Variety is good.
mb2m@reddit (OP)
I agree when documentation and automation is there.
Infinity-of-Thoughts@reddit
Does it matter? For consumers, networking will, likely/hopefully, work out of the box.
For anyone else, it's more than likely that they have some special needs, and will be fine with setting those up.
The only people that care are distrohoppers, and frankly, they don't really matter. Like, the entire purpose of their "existence" is to see what else is there.
MatchingTurret@reddit
A lot of the basics are from the 1990s like DHCP(1997) or IPv6 (1998), so I'd argue that a lot has changed since the 80s.
AmSoMad@reddit
I’d argue that, for consumer distros, which have heavily consolidated over the last \~5 years, we’ve already mostly agreed on
systemdat the system level. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Arch, openSUSE, they’re all running it. That part of the stack isn’t really fragmented anymore. It's not heavy, most of us don't want to handle it ourselves, and it has common sense defaults (like reconnecting automatically when you disconnect).Then, server distros tend to use either
systemd-networkdorNetworkManagerdepending on how minimal or automated you want things.networkdis more barebones and predictable,NetworkManageris more full-featured but still perfectly usable on servers now.And then cloud tends to sit one layer above all of that, usually driven by something like
cloud-init, where networking is defined declaratively at boot and handed off to whatever backend the distro is using. At that point you’re not really “configuring networking” in the traditional sense anyway, you’re describing desired state and letting the system apply it.So, in that sense, it doesn't really feel fragmented anymore. It's more segmented by use case, desktop, server, and cloud each converging on their own defaults. The only real outliers are the distros intentionally avoiding
systemd, which is more of a separate philosophical choice than a lack of agreement.NotQuiteLoona@reddit
Is there any need in that? I just use what my distro provides.