Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:58:41 +0300 From: gremlin@...mlin.ru To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: [owl-users] Owl 3.1-stable On 2015-01-11 20:02:20 +0300, croco@...nwall.com wrote: >>> Such ability is good for people who prefer to do everything >>> manually. >> The primary reason for doing that was the need to build more >> complex configurations than a single ethernet link. > Well, it is possible to have as many interfaces as you want > without the need of overriding the Owl default networking startup; > However, I perfectly understand you: more automation always means > less flexibility. Yes. That's why I'd recommend leave it for trivial configurations, and allow overriding it for complex systems. TWIMBI: now I'm administering over a hundred of physical servers at 7 different locations - so I think I've got a bit more close to understanding of what do our users really need :-) -- Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru> GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.