Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 11 May 2007 20:52:55 Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Now that I'm reading the page a little closer, I see that NetworkManager >> should also work on servers. I'm not sure I understand the rationale >> behind this. Does anyone care to elaborate? > > If we're going to move toward NetworkManager everywhere (which we really > should, multiple config stacks == bad), NM needs to work well in a server > env, static IPs, brought up without login, various other server related > needs. > So the obvious question would be; Are we going to move toward NetworkManager? I agree that having multiple config stacks is bad, but the problem here is choice (where did I hear that before?). As long as we're not forcing the user / system admin to choose between s-c-n/NM, and/or service network vs. NM, you'll have multiple config stacks. The problem may not be solved by enabling upstream NM to take over s-c-n functionality and stability and just force the use of NM over s-c-n, rather then just letting (forcing) someone choose between the two configuration systems, right? -kanarip -- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
