On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One of the things about progress and getting to a more mature *platform* > that is suitable across a wide range of uses is change. I'm not saying > that NetworkManager is perfect yet for the server needs. But having > people that want to run a server say "pound sand, go the hell away, we > don't want to run your new-fangled stuff" doesn't help us get to where > it is. Maintaining two systems in parallel is very much a long-run > losing position. I agree with the desire to maintain only one tool. However, NM is extremely desktop oriented, and there seems to include no hint of an intention to support the complex setups that are possible with the old ifcfg infra. Scripting is actually a great fit for network config policies. All the NM goodies could be built into a much _much_ leaner program that can orchestrate different network configurations dynamically (ifcfg style). Right now it's a monolith -- I'm not tracking it closely, but nm-tool is slowly getting some very basic functions, and there's no scripting supported AFAICS. So I suspect that the NM design is specifically for a '2 solutions' world. Ignore the server role (with all its needs of automation and odd configs), address only the mainstream desktop (with a pre-cooked set of rules that can be baked into the binary). To have a single tool that can handle both, it'd have to be a design goal. cheers, m -- martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx martin@xxxxxxxxxx -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
