Re: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable"

[Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>]

On 12/31/14 22:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o<tytso@mit.edu>  wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the confusing part is that "ip" tends to use "verb object"
>> scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
>> trying to emulate.
>
> Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
> with? I mean, Cisco iOS is just _soooo_ universally loved, right?

I think I sense a bit cynical (under)tone here ;-)

> And yeah, I refuse to use "ip link" or other insane commands. Let's
> face it, "ifconfig" and "route" are perfectly fine commands, and a
> whole lot less confusing than "ip" with random crap after it.  I'm
> really not seeing why that "ip" command was seen as an improvement.

So does "ip" provide the same functionality as "ifconfig" and "route" or 
does the package have more to offer.

The "iw" tool provides much more subcommands to perform different 
wireless tasks that are not provided by "iwconfig" and friends. So 
functionally "iw" provides a superset. Just have to get equivalent 
output format to mimic "iwconfig" as Ted suggested.

Well, that's something for next year as we are getting close to midnight 
over here.

Regards,
Arend

> (Ok, "ip route" isn't any more complex than "route", but "ip link"
> sure as hell isn't simpler than "ifconfig" for most things I can think
> of)
>
>                       Linus