Hacker News Reader

Comment by pxeboot | Hacker News Reader

On the server side, this is one of the reasons my company is quickly moving all Ubuntu servers to Debian. It is so much easier to just edit /etc/network/interfaces.

View on HN

I prefer plain Systeme-networkd. Basically you just create a network unit file and configure the interface with it. Basically like network/interfaces, just a little bit more cleaned up

netplan can actually use systemd-networkd as a backend. It will just generate the unit files, and let systemd do the job.

but what’s the point. It’s not that much work to create a unit file and configuration is always better in text form.

If netplan would be an api driven tool via dbus or other ipc‘s to drive an ui I would understand the need. But as cli tool?! It’s a little bit stupid

NetworkManager is that api driven tool, with cli frontend available too (nmcli); I don't get the need for netplan either.

What's the benefit over writing netplan vs networks unit files?

So that if you like to randomly switch your underlying network management tools, you can have something take what you have and generate semi-working configurations with hard to track down bugs.

> Debian so far has decided to go with Netplan for their nework stack on Debian Cloud images.

Seems not for long

Thats unfortunate. Netplan is half-baked. Buggy and feature incomplete.

That sentence in the article almost reads as if it's missing a crucial word ("not").

Did Debian indeed decide to go with Netplan?

The copy/pasta is accurate. Debian is adopting it[1]

[1]: https://blog.slyon.de/2023/07/10/netplan-and-systemd-network...

That's funny because for me it was the other way around.

network/interfaces feels so archaic. Then you add bonding, multiple interfaces, custom metrics, and IPv6 and you need to pray before reloading.

Anyway, to each its own I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com