On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:17 +0000, Bill Crawford wrote: > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 06:56:08 Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > What's the point of asking for that when you can already turn > > NetworkManager off. If NetworkManager fills all the role provided by > > s-c-network, there's no point in having two ways to do the same thing. > > I started off by saying that there are several things that > > NetworkManager doesn't do yet so s-c-network shouldn't be removed yet. > > The worry is that the "NM can replace this" argument is heading towards removal > of the "old" way of doing things, and for a few people that's annoying. It is > not a true replacement; it does very different things. > > > Some of these things bring change and seem to make some people overly > > nervous, as long you can do things the old way, try not to block > > change that is useful to everyone else. It's just like PulseAudio, it > > helps a lot of people, but it works terribly for me, so I just removed > > it. No need to go complaining about its existence. > > We're not "complaining about its existence" we are objecting to it being forced > as a "replacement" in all situations, even though it a) doesn't really support > all those situations, and b) is unnecessary in at least some of them. > > No one is "blocking change that is useful to everyone else", some people object > to having this change forced on them ... > > The "it still works" argument is disingenuous when the NM solution is being > touted as a complete replacement for the "old" way, ... we're not stupid, we > know the plan is to remove the "old" way of doing things completely. Some of us > think this should be postponed until NM can *actually* be a replacement, and I > for one would like it if NM would "get out of the way" ... I have a single > wired ethernet connection on this machine, and no matter how much RAM I have, > using some of it semi-permanently to support NM in the background is a waste. > > Not saying you shouldn't have your NM, just want to be sure I won't be forced to > use it :o) I think there's some heat being generated here due to the fact that 'NetworkManager' is not a suitably specific term :) >From the discussion it appears that the 'Edit Connections' tool in NetworkManager (nm-connection-editor) can perform some configuration tasks even if you are not actually using the NetworkManager daemon - i.e. it can configure the 'old school' /etc/sysconfig files. This is the sense in which NetworkManager can 'replace' s-c-n, I believe. So what's really important is: what can s-c-n configure in the /etc/sysconfig system than nm-connection-editor cannot? All the (useful) functions in s-c-n have to be available in nm-connection-editor before s-c-n can safely be dropped. That's the real issue, I think. I don't think anyone is proposing dropping the support for the 'network' service and /etc/sysconfig configuration files, so it's not really useful to discuss whether that's a good idea or not, since it isn't happening. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
