Hi Jeff; On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 19:52 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, William Case <billlinux@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Aaron, in an earlier post you said "If you use NM then > > system-confiig-network is of no use. It controls the > > scripts for network." How can I find out exactly which scripts NM > > controls for the network? I am assuming the antecedent for the 'It' > > pronoun quoted above is the word 'NM'. > > > You continue to confuse yourself. NM does most of what it does > automatically. In computers, nothing does most of what it does automagically. It does things because it has electricity, transistors, cpus, memory, compiled code, code in kernel space and code in user space. If a process calls on other code or scripts, it still exists as a separate entity that starts several processes. It may do it in one way when it is just considered the 'network' or an other way when it it is called NewtworkManager. > In Fedora 9 it does expose some ability to support > static ip addresses but i havent used that particular feature so I can > not point to exactly where it holds that information. > > For typical uses, where NM is talking to a dhcp server... NM doesn't > hold need to hold much of anything with regard to configuration...so > you are looking for configuration files which don't typically > exist...a futile effort. > > You already found the connections area under gconf...NM holds > information in there about connections its name in there. I did NOT find any references to NM or connections in .gconfig or gconfig-editor. If I had found them, that would probably have satisfied me. I responded to your post a couple of days ago saying exactly that. > -jef"These conversations are proof that s-c-network and the legacy > network service should be removed by default in F10 for at least the > Desktop spin"spaleta > Paying attention to manuals and help documentation which explains what is happening would go a lot further than the proposed M$ solution of hiding things from the user. For example, some reference to netfs and how that virtual net file system might be used and viewed would go along way. There is no need to remove services that still have some use to some people. Implying that people are too stupid to understand is an attitude that the Open Source movement has eshewed. Open Source by its very definition assumes people can come to understand. My experience is that people who can't explain things; can't do so because they don't themselves really understand. -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
