Proposal: ditch pre-made "console" and "network" scripts

Bryan Kadzban bryan at
Wed Jan 5 09:55:48 PST 2005

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:51:18PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> I admit that forcing the reader to write his own network script
> instead of a pre-made one is more educational

I don't think I agree with that.  Either way, the user is going to have
to know or learn how their local network is set up.  Either way, they're
going to have to figure out their DHCP daemon's options (if applicable).
Either way, they'll have to set up PPPoE (if applicable).  The only thing
that forcing them to write an entire script is going to teach, is how to
write an entire script.  Which they should know already, at least with my
definition of "intermediate to advanced" (and it appears that you agree,
if your comments about #3 are any indication).

In other words, ISTM that forcing users to write an entire network script
just boils down to tedium for them.

> and provides some possibility for the
> reader to successfully implement currently unsupported network settings
> like ppp-on-boot or bridges.

I don't know about bridging, but I have PPP(oE, but same difference) on
boot working with relatively recent bootscripts, so it's not impossible.
Unless "unsupported" != "impossible" -- but if that's the case, why does
it matter that it's unsupported?  (Alternately, how do we decide what's
supported and what isn't?)

As far as 1 and 2 (removing the current console script and enforcing
some non-magical configuration), that doesn't really matter to me,
because I don't use the console script anyway.  ;-)  Non magical
configuration is good, too.  (I don't believe the network script acts
magically, though, which is why I said what I did above.)

Number 3 I have mixed feelings on.  I do agree that they should know how
to write scripts (see above).  But I'm not sure that telling them not to
ask anything about the script (possibly including questions like "what
settings are other people using for my locale?  It's not supported by my
distro, so I've been working around the limitation") is wise.  As long
as they sound like they've done some research already, I don't think
it's wise to turn them away.

Maybe change the admonition to something saying, in effect, "go ahead
and ask if you need to, but if your question shows the wrong kind of
ignorance, you may be ignored -- we have better things to do than teach
you stuff you should already know".  Obviously not in those words (but I
can't come up with any good way of putting it, either).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list