From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17103 invoked by uid 1002); 24 Aug 2003 15:10:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 6804 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2003 15:10:09 -0000 Message-ID: <3F48D544.80005@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:09:56 -0400 From: Brad Laue User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030811 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030823210429.57e7e85c.genone@genone.de> <3F47C082.8020900@gentoo.org> <1061670566.6740.16.camel@localhost> <3F4867BF.7060708@gentoo.org> <1061714007.6740.38.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1061714007.6740.38.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] reason for dhcpcd in system profile ? X-Archives-Salt: c52af307-3fb3-4a83-99be-2ebf04e78be3 X-Archives-Hash: 11830f795d53b702f4f98b38855f85a7 Kevyn Shortell wrote: > I'd have to take a guess that Comcast in California has more DHCP cable > customers than Canada has broadband customers. Bell Canada's Sympatico service started out as the driving force behind the development of PPPoE clients under Linux, and the past two releases of both Mandrake and RedHat have in fact included built-in support and configuration frontends that enable a user to get online with minimal hassle. Re: the sanity of choosing DHCP over PPPoE, the main perceived drawback is the dynamic IP. This is a management issue - PPPoE is as capable of delivering a static IP to the user as standard PPP is. As for encapsulation overhead, 1meg and 3meg service render this unnoticeable to the user (it may perhaps be 'less efficient' from a purist standpoint, but these are residential connections we're talking about). At any rate, seeing as both PPPoE and DHCP are not as universal as ethernet (which requires the presence of such utilities as ifconfig in the basic system), and are both really fast emerges, wouldn't they contribute to a nice small base system? They seem more reasonable choices than some of the other suggestions I'm seeing. > I agree that pruning the base system is probably a good idea, but why > look at basic network components that atleast half of our users require > in order to get their machine on the net? Because they're options, and options are not defaults. :P Brad -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list