System Config Tools Cleanup Project - tools to eliminate/replace

Suren Karapetyan surenkarapetyan at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 21:14:07 UTC 2009


Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2009, 01:56 -0500 schrieb Arthur Pemberton:
>>
>>     
>>>> It's useful for laptops which travel a lot (not even all laptops, cause many
>>>> of them are used as desktop-replacements).
>>>>         
>>> It's useful for desktops as well.
>>>       
>> If your desktop is connected to the internet via ethernet, what is the
>> use of NetworkManager? Or if the desktop is not connected to the
>> internet at all, what's it's use?
>>     
>
>
> The same reason I first tried NetworkManager and got thoroughly
> burned... the base network script don't handle losing and resuming
> connections. Listen, I've been burned by NM in its early days, and I
> recognize that it isn't ready yet. I just don't support those who say
> that NM should be retired.
>
>
>   
Look, guys, there is a huge misunderstanding involved in every 
discussion about NM.
Those who "protect" NM try to protect it in every situation. They are 
sure everyone who
wants to use anything except NM want NM dead and buried face down.
 They always say that every
"normal" person's use cases are covered by NM, and if it isn't good for 
you - you are stupid,
you're on your own and you should burn in hell, and also you try to 
block changes
which are good for everyone.

And those who "attack" NM (including me :) ) think (and I hope they are 
wrong) that
"the others" (yep.. the ones from ABC's series :) ) are going to force 
them use something,
which they don't want and it is going to cause them a lot of unbearable 
pain...

What I think everyone will agree with is that both NM and 
/etc/init.d/network have cons and pros
and that both have their users. It's also clear that NM's features 
aren't super-set of
"service network"'s and the opposite isn't true too.
I also think there will be no objections if I say:
One should always be able to setup everything he wants with 
ifconfig/iproute2
If You don't agree with it, think about a completely hosed system...
Then do "ldd `which ifconfig`" and "ldd `which NetworkManager`" and 
guess which one
has more chance to die because of a few bad blocks on the HDD.

If we put all this thoughts (which look like facts to me) together we 
get that it's possible
and makes sense to maintain "service network" next to NM *forever*.

I think if we all can agree on the last sentence it will make all the 
future discussions
much more constructive.




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list