From: not@telling.you.invalid   
      
   Marc Haber  wrote:   
   > not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:   
   >>Marco Moock  wrote:   
   >>> On 15.01.2026 03:14 rbowman rbowman wrote:   
   >>>> ifconfig works fine for me and I don't have to read the whole damn ip   
   >>>> man page to coax the info out of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Some distributions do not ship it by default, but moved it to a   
   >>> separate package.   
   >>   
   >>Some Linux distributions still ship with ifconfig and without ip.   
   >   
   > Which one?   
      
   Tiny Core Linux.   
      
   >>Plus ifconfig is common between different UNIX-type OSs. It looks   
   >>like there's still no ip command in the BSDs, for example.   
   >   
   > ifconfig is common, but its parameters are different everywhere and   
   > its output as well.   
      
   Like most common UNIX commands are between different UNIX-type OSs.   
      
   > Just having the same command name doesn't constitute an acceptable   
   > interface.   
      
   They work similarly and give you a start with what to look for.   
   I've being playing with a 1990s UNIX-type OS lately and the   
   ifconfig differences weren't a problem at all. Plus I at least   
   know the command name so I can check the man page and see the   
   differences, without starting from basics and needing to learn   
   a completely different set of command names. Surely the advantage   
   is obvious?   
      
   --   
   __          __   
   #_ < |\| |< _#   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)