On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:37 +0800, Zind wrote: > I have already seen quite a lot posts about this NetworkManager issue > on serveral mailing lists. I've seen it discussed, for a long time. There's a mixture of it behaving in ways people didn't like, and people messing with their system without really knowing what they're doing. > So, maybe NetworkManager should change the way it works? I'm not sure. That's also difficult to answer. For quite some time, it was clear that it was only aimed at the GUI users, as there was only a GUI interface for it. Command line usage came later on. It is supposedly possible to do what people have been wanting to do, with the GUI, if only they bothered trying to use it. It's clear, from many of the discussions, that they haven't. Some people might like it if it fitted in more with the traditionally networking configuration, but the old method had its drawbacks, as well. Particularly when it comes to multiple networks. The presumption was, particularly with ethernet, that you were only ever part of one network. About the only place dynamic network changes were expected was with dial-up, and even then I found it painful to use a system with more than one dial-up ISP. Then, later on, comes the widespread use of wireless LANs, making a need for variable changing LAN configuration, too. That was something that didn't work well before NetworkManager. But just how would NetworkManager read traditional network configuration files, to begin with, then incorporate them into what it's going to do, when the traditional method tends to have just one ethernet configuration file, for one network? Sure, it could work if NetworkManager only kept connecting to the same network. But it could be somewhat of a schmozzle to try and make it work with several different networks. Which gives some insight into why it does what it does, in the way that it does. A large part of the problem seems to resolve around how a lot of modern networking expects you to be using a client that's configured by DHCP, yet users want static setups without DHCP. But rather than stop their computer using DHCP, they try to jam static information in over the top of a DHCP client configuration. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
