Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #267682 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 78 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 07:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 10:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 11:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-23 11:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 01:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-03-15 09:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 17:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-03-15 17:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> - 2024-03-15 19:20 +0100
Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-03-15 20:00 +0100
Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> - 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100
Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100
Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib9CV-cpsW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267773 |
Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100 schrieb Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>: > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated > with everything negative that is black in language. I can't understand why people draw that association. Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal activities on black markets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib9Wh-cpzS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267801 |
On 2/25/24, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100 > schrieb Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>: > >> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated >> with everything negative that is black in language. > > I can't understand why people draw that association. > Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal > activities on black markets. Absolutely. Those who are engaging in the superficial side of cultural manipulation, superficial "social warriors" when they fail to demonstrate empathy to all sides, all people, have been consciously or unconsciously exploited, or are active consciously, in this type of linguistic and cultural manipulation. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/culture-2018-0023/html?lang=en This process of societal manipulation, under the guise and pretence of "social justice" has been underway with intention for decades, and there is a sort of penultimate fruition of this intention which we now see manifesting in all online communities as well as in the real world. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1926982 There are two sides, in fact many sides and viewpoints which can be considered valid, and from the point of view of some, "Cultural Marxism" does not even exist and is simply a "far right" meme or even an "anti semitic conspiracy theory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory Sun Tzu's The Art of War may be a useful foundation for comprehending the tactics underlying some of the things we read on Wikipedia and elsewhere... intention is witnessed ultimately in the effects of the action, not in what is said. The mind is the great trickster. Evil thrives only in darkness as wile thrives in convoluted linguistic tactics. Be not deceived and bring as much light as possible, that ALL sides may be heard and beheld for their truth, both exposit and clandestine. For those who got this far, a gem to possibly assist you in unpacking that which you may have not witnessed before: https://ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/13/570 "... A lie and manipulation are opposed to different types of truth: a lie stands up against “semantic truth”; manipulation opposes “pragmatic truth”. Manipulation is realized when the listener cannot see the speaker’s covered intentions behind what is actually being said. As one of the key parameters of manipulative utterance is specific intentionality, in order to discriminate manipulation, one has to analyze such parameters as aim of verbal communication, communicative intention, reason, and motive. Manipulation is pragmatic aspect that achieves its goals without evident detection of communicative intention: the speaker wittingly chooses such form of utterance that lacks direct signals of his intentional condition..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ibl1o-cwpN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267801 |
Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 00:27:41 Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> napisał(a): > Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100 > schrieb Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>: > > > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated > > with everything negative that is black in language. > > I can't understand why people draw that association. > Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal > activities on black markets. > If you decide that there is a problem first, then try to find "evidence" of it existing you will always find it. Even if "evidence" will be "someone somewhere in earth of billion people used the term in racist way once", the fact it normally is not used like that doesn't matter, a virtual offended minority in their head must've been offended by that so they by proxy are too and need to fight it. All so they can tell themselves that they "made a difference" and "made a world a better place", without doing anything actually meaningful, while typing on their device made by wage-slavery in some asian country. But we're supposed to believe them on their word that there is some theoretical group former slaves that somehow made career as Linux admin, had to set up bonding and pick the slave interfaces bonded to it and got PTSD in the process. And when you ask them which real people are exactly offended by it and how it is even supposed to help you get "guys let's not get political, just do exactly what I said you should do, I'm the expert here, you peons just abide by my wishes" or "I won't respond to argument because you must be racist, and by racist I define "doesn't agree with me"". I don't like religious proverbs but the road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. Also I am a member of minority group called West Slavs, which the term slave came from so I hereby grant the Linux kernel unlimited permission to use that term indefinitely (that was a joke, I don't think any group should have any power in defining stuff like that). -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaKbv-c9eM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267705 |
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 11:07 +0100, Marco Moock wrote: > > Debian is mostly a collection of many packages that are packed in the > repo.Such changes are normally done upstream. I found e.g. this on upstream work on that topic: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/e515b840-c6f1-bc07-9369-c95e352573b2@solarflare.com/T/ but I must confess I have not dug into upstream kernel sources to find out if this has been accepted in the kernel, and if so from what version. > > I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there > are more important tasks like testing or adding functionality. I really don't want to argue any political arguments on the merits of removing master/slave, blacklist/whitelist, black hat/white hat here, but I think "it is some effort" or "it concerns only few people" is not the strongest argument. *If* one considers it the right thing to do, then some minor effort in comparable with other minor changes is not out of line. /ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaF2a-c5SB-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267682 |
Hi, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the > political aspects of the "why", No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical facts they claim to care about. 😀 Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fxkl47BF@protonmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaFbP-c5W8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267732 |
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote: >> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the >> political aspects of the "why", > > No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very > strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you > asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical > facts they claim to care about. 😀 too many people have nothing constuctive to do so they spend there days stirring the pile idle hands and all that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaHnk-c7s9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267734 |
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:50:12 fxkl47BF@protonmail.com napisał(a): > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Andy Smith wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > >> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the > >> political aspects of the "why", > > > > No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very > > strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you > > asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical > > facts they claim to care about. 😀 > > too many people have nothing constuctive to do > so they spend there days stirring the pile > idle hands and all that > Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything that actually helps anyone. -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaKbv-c9eM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267738 |
Hello, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 06:14:02PM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:50:12 > fxkl47BF@protonmail.com napisał(a): > > too many people have nothing constuctive to do > > so they spend there days stirring the pile > > idle hands and all that > > Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be > activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything > that actually helps anyone. You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made clear that the work was already done. One more time: a successor to the Ethernet bonding driver already exists and has for more than 10 years. In a time before some people decided to get very worked up about inclusive language, it just happens to avoid the terminology we're talking about. Again, all I see are people getting very upset, accusing others of being "woke" and "activists", but somehow they are the ones making all the noise. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaKEx-c9rw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267749 |
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 20:10 +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> One more time: a successor to the Ethernet bonding driver already
> exists and has for more than 10 years.
That is the other thing I wanted to ask here, I have configured a
LACP link aggregating interface more or less similar to what is
described in the wiki, in my /etc/interfaces there is now:
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
address 10.0.16.2/24
bond-slaves en0 en1
bond-mode 4
bond-miimon 100
bond-downdelay 200
bond-updelay 200
bond-lacp-rate 1
bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4
which seems to work (I could not test throughput yet, because
I am waiting for cables).
If I do this, does "ifupdown" use "ifenslave" or does it
use "ip link set" as described here:
https://www.uni-koeln.de/~pbogusze/posts/LACP_configuration_using_iproute2.html
behind the scenes? Is the wiki/documentation lagging the actual
implementation? Is there a way to find out (other than removing
ifenslave and seeing if it still works)?
Should documentation in the wiki be updated?
Also, above still(?) contains "bond-slaves en0 en1" so if this is
a new implementation, is there still some terminology change to be
expected? Or can I replace bond-slaves with something else in the
current Debian bookworm?
/ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaL7z-c9Sw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267754 |
Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > in my /etc/interfaces there is now: > > auto bond0 > iface bond0 inet static > address 10.0.16.2/24 > bond-slaves en0 en1 > bond-mode 4 > bond-miimon 100 > bond-downdelay 200 > bond-updelay 200 > bond-lacp-rate 1 > bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4 > > which seems to work (I could not test throughput yet, because > I am waiting for cables). > > If I do this, does "ifupdown" use "ifenslave" or does it > use "ip link set" as described here: Last time I looked was in Debian 10 (buster) and there it does still call ifenslave. ifupdown won't be able to bring up bond0 if ifenslave isn't present on the system. You can verify it with "ifup -v bond0" to see what commands it uses (assuming your networking was down to start with, so that this would work). > Also, above still(?) contains "bond-slaves en0 en1" so if this is > a new implementation, is there still some terminology change to be > expected? Or can I replace bond-slaves with something else in the > current Debian bookworm? What you describe is still the bonding driver, just without the use of the "ifenslave" command. The very first reply to you in this thread was from me pointing you at the teaming driver. …which I have never used nor yet tried to use. But it *is* meant to replace/succeed the bonding driver. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaQ7f-cd3j-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267749 |
>> Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be >> activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything >> that actually helps anyone. > > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made > clear that the work was already done. Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language, there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering words. If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to that healing. Salt water stings, but helps clean the wound. We fail in our duty of care to one another, when we reduce or eliminate catalysts to healing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaQqB-cdaC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267760 |
Hi, On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > I wrote: > > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made > > clear that the work was already done. > > Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who > are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language, > there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not > decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering > words. > > If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to > that healing. I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" Meanwhile I'd just appreciate hearing from actual users of it, since I might be one, one day. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib8xb-coK2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267761 |
On 2/24/24, Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> I wrote: >> > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made >> > clear that the work was already done. >> >> Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who >> are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language, >> there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not >> decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering >> words. >> >> If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to >> that healing. > > I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's > terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS > non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in > their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical > reasons!" Except "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" is not what I said. I suggest you reduce your occurrence of putting words in other people's mouths, which they did not say. Some folks consider that rude. Others might claim (validly) that you have a manipulative agenda. > Meanwhile I'd just appreciate hearing from actual users of it, since > I might be one, one day. You are welcome to invite user feedback.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib8GS-coOt-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267793 |
Hi, On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:17:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On 2/24/24, Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >> I wrote: > >> > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made > >> > clear that the work was already done. > >> > >> Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who > >> are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language, > >> there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not > >> decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering > >> words. > >> > >> If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to > >> that healing. > > > > I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's > > terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS > > non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in > > their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical > > reasons!" > > Except "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free > time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" is not > what I said. Oh, okay. So what is it exactly about what the developers of the teaming driver have done with regard to not using so-called "non-inclusive terminology" that you consider to have been a mistake? I thought that was the exact topic of conversation here, and the above was you saying that it shouldn't be removed but should in fact be left there as some sort of "shock treatment" but apparently I have misunderstood you. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaHnk-c7s9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267732 |
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:44:03 Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> napisał(a): > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the > > political aspects of the "why", > > No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very > strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you > asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical > facts they claim to care about. 😀 "Do what I say, discussion is not allowed because I don't want to make a sensible arguments!" "Damn those people using reason and questioning what I want, just do what I say!" Yes, completely unsurprising as those kinds of demands always come from those kinds of unreasonable people. Fork a kernel, do your changes and see how many are interested. -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaKlb-c9in-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267739 |
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 18:13 +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > "Do what I say, discussion is not allowed because I don't want to > make a sensible arguments!" This certainly is not my position. I have no problem arguing this question, and I've got an opinion on it. I just think this mailing list probably is not the right place to argue this question. > "Damn those people using reason and questioning what I want, just do > what I say!" > For me it is more: "I know it is controversial, but I do not want to flood the list with the controversial part, that contains lots of personal opinions, political positioning, subjective aspects, but want to ask about the non-controversial, factual, part, that contains no political aspects and can be answered without opinion, purely with facts. I just want to know the current situation, I don't want to convince anybody here. /ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaLqV-c9ZH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267752 |
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:10:31 +0100 Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> wrote: > I just think this mailing > list probably is not the right place to argue this question. Hear, hear! Those who wish to weigh in have done so. I doubt any further argumentation will change anyone else's mind. Now kindly stop wasting your time, my time, bandwidth, and hard drive space on this. And grow some tolerance for other people's foibles, and perhaps others will grow some tolerance for your foibles. Thank you. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaJyN-c8JA-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267682 |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:36 AM Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> wrote: > > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e. > how far this has been progressed in Debian. > > Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of > network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides > this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just > wondering. > > https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding This might be a question that is more appropriate for Debian's Technical Committee, <https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte>. Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web