Gordon Messmer writes:
I understand what you're saying. It's just that static configuration isn't what NM does. The old network service does, and I sincerely hope no one ever suggests deprecating the network service unless NM offers that mode of operation, which it does not, today.
I'm trying to recall the history of introduction of NM. I'm pretty sure that, at some point, a new Fedora release made NM the default network configuration manager. I certainly do not recall explicitly enabling network manager for my existing servers.
And, in fact, NM will definitely own a particular interface unless one explicitly shoves NM_CONTROLLED=NO, doesn't it? So, in fact we have NM getting attached, by default, by default, for all network interfaces unless one takes explicit steps to exclude it.
Maybe, perhaps, this approach should've made sense to do so only when NM actually was able to support all the functionality it was taking over? How's that for a crazy idea? Does anyone think I'm being completely off-base and unreasonable, expecting to things to continue to work, as is, by default?
I don't mind if network service got replaced by NM, or by some other infrastructure. Whatever it is, I'll learn to use it. I just
don't want my stuff to break.I don't want to figure out exactly, and in what precise way, something is now broken, and then figure out how to hack my way around it.
And I am not singling out just NetworkManager. It's merely a symptom of the latest malaise that's infecting too many people – "ooh! shiny ball!" – and then getting fixated on the new, shiny, spinning ball, and then ripping out reliable, working functionality, replacing it with a bunch of bells and whistles that don't quite replace what was there before.
Attachment:
pgpKnuJOz8hx_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
