Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:45:54 +0100 lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> There should be a clear choice when installing --- and/or by package >> dependencies --- so users can pick what they prefer. > > There should also be a default choice, in case the user doesn't know > what to choose. Currently, the default is NM. Experienced users who > instead wish to use the old network service, should be already familiar > with the procedure of disabling NM and enabling network service. The installer didn't give me a choice. > As far as package installation choices, I believe both the old network > service and NM are tied in too deeply with dependencies, and in a > typical setup they both must be installed on the system. That's why I'm saying that they need to fix the dependencies for networkmanager. It's obsolete unless you have the special use cases which it is useful for. >> Currently, networkmanager looks like something somehow put on top of >> what has been used before and doesn't really integrate but messes with >> it, resulting in a mess that yields unexpected results and confuses >> users. If *either* networkmanager *or* the ifcfg-* files (or >> something else clearly defined and self-contained and documented) was >> used to configure the network, there wouldn't be a mess and users >> won't be confused. > > NM actually *uses* the ifcfg-* scripts for the configuration of each > network interface. It can also create new and rewrite existing ifcfg-* > scripts, as needed (usually per user request or when a new network is > discovered). Just like I said, it's somehow put on top of things and messes with them. > This was done for compatibility reasons, as well as to allow more > intricate setups where both NM and the old network service would be > active on the same system at the same time (I was running such a setup > some time ago). > > A novice user would just run the default setup, with NM controlling all > interfaces, use the GUI to configure NM, and everything would work as > expected, without any confusion. An experienced user should know what > he wants to setup, and how to do it. By definition, an experienced > user should not get confused in setting up networking, or otherwise he > is actually lacking experience. Your definition is flawed. An experienced user who doesn't know how Fedora handles the configuration of network interfaces does run into problems because networkmanager messes with things and the documentation is insufficient. A novice user will run into trouble as well when something doesn't work with networkmanager, and they might need even better documentation than experienced users do. For all users, networkmanager is obsolete and even a disadvantage due to its resource usage unless they have special cases for which it is useful. Making it the default in Fedora without giving users a choice was a bad decision. -- Fedora 17 -- 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
