On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:31:09PM -0400, Tom Diehl wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Colin Walters wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Quite a lot of people still don't want to use NetworkManager. It makes >>> little sense on a system which just sits there connected to a static IP >>> address 24/7. >> >> I think it does because it provides a useful networking API for other >> applications to consume. For example, answering the question "is >> there an active network link" was effectively impossible for app >> authors before. >> >> Also, in my opinion on a well-managed network if you want a fixed IP >> address, the right way to do it is MAC matching on the DHCP server, >> not client configuration. And NetworkManager works well in such a >> setup. > > Which I guess is OK if you are not setting up the system with the dhcp server > AND the box you are setting up has X installed. Does NM have a command line > interface? Not that I have seen but I could have missed it. NM supports static IP addresses configured in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX, or you could enable the keyfile plugin to use INI-like files to specify network configuration. If you set ONBOOT=yes, you don't even need to interact with NM in any way--it should just work. If you need to wait for the network before continuing the system boot up, set NETWORKWAIT=yes in /etc/sysconfig/network. So basically, the no-X argument isn't convincing to me, because you can still do the basic stuff the old non-X way and it works. However, there is an argument for not getting rid of the old network scripts. The following are supported with network scripts but not NM yet: 1. IPv6 2. bridges 3. interface aliases ..and probably more. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
