On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 09:31, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:28:49AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > That then requires someone ensures every single script/option/method called > > > by NetworkManager is also called by the old style paths. > > > > Not sure about that. The "old style" is very manual. NetworkManager is > > entirely dynamic and moving as much per-user as possible. There are > > probably things on the old path that shouldn't be used by > > NetworkManager, or if they are used, it should just be as fallbacks. > > The alternative is that every application supports both and gets tested with > both. Ughhhhhhhhh. My feeling is that long term a daemon is right for servers too ... the current style of a nest of shell scripts that tweak system configuration parameters, run one service or another at one time or another just isn't coherent or maintainable. It certainly doesn't lend itself to status monitoring, a config GUI, etc. For a server though you typically want the operation of the daemon to be driven off of config files with explicit "reread-config" signals. But I could see the same daemon being used for both with the dynamic case being turned on by those config files. Now, of course, changing the way networking on servers works from what people are used to is likely to run into just a wee bit of resistance. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
