On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 15:17 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:13 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Really? Most of the work over the past couple of years in NM seems to > > be aimed at trying to support these cases as opposed to just the > > "simple" desktop case > > That's odd -- I've never seen any of it. Are there good examples of > how you configure a server to do special stuff with it? Or a > 'scripting network-manager' guide somewhere? Much of the work going from NM 0.6 -> 0.7 has been around things like multiple interfaces up at once, static configs and system settings. All of which are things which matter far more for your typical server than a desktop. > > And rather than focusing on nm-tool and exactly what it exposes, it's > > probably more interesting to look at the dbus interfaces/daemon > > capabilities. Yes, I'll be one of the first to say it's painful to > > write code interacting with dbus :-) -- but, it is very flexible and > > And > - it's very far removed from the stuff that a unix sysadmin deals with > - it forces me to have a script running to listen to dbus events :-/ Lots of things in a modern system are far removed from the stuff a unix sysadmin has traditionally dealt with. That doesn't make it necessarily "bad". And as Seth pointed out, this "all new is bad" or "all new is good" dichotomy is a part of the problem Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
