On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:56:08 Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Suren Karapetyan > > <surenkarapetyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > Come on... :) > > A full-fledged daemon running all the time sitting on the system bus > > waking up every few seconds (to eat CPU) which is going to do > > What exactly is a full-fledged daemon tha makes it bad things for > servers or desktops? What amount of your CPU is it using that it is > such a bad thing. 2045 root 20 0 69236 2456 1920 S 0.0 0.1 0:01.98 NetworkManager 2058 root 20 0 74152 3964 3336 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.06 nm-system-setti NetworkManager wakes up every second and does a new poll syscall with 3 second timeout. 6MB of RAM, 15 open fds and 1/3 wakeup/s to do network management on a laptop which travels once it day is O.K. 6MB of RAM, 15 open fds and 1/3 wakeup/s to do absolutely nothing (e.g. server :) ) is bad. Of course it doesn't use much, and I'm sure it can be made to use even less. But there is no point in using any CPU/RAM/HDD at all if it isn't going to do you any good. > > > ifconfig eth0 111.111.111.111/24 up > > ip route add default via 111.111.111.222 > > echo "nameserver 111.111.111.123" > /etc/resolv.conf > > > > And do it only *once* every reboot (which can easily be 30+ days). > > > > This makes sense neither for servers nor for desktops. > > Look, if you have a simple setup fine. I am all for everyone having > their choice. But taking the tone that it is some bad thing or a waste > of time is ridiculous. It makes sense on desktops unless they have a > connection that cannot ever be severed, and do not use VPNs. I'm also for everyone having their free choice and that's my main point. And I'm not saying that it's useless, I'm saying that sometimes it useless. > > > It's useful for laptops which travel a lot (not even all laptops, cause > > many of them are used as desktop-replacements). > > It's useful for desktops as well. The main part of it which is useful (and is different from simple script which runs dhclient) for desktop (with single connection) IMO is detecting if there is internet connection. Do I miss something big here. > > > What I'm asking for is to allow free choice, cause , you know, there is > > no such thing as "one true way", > > i.e. what is the only way in one situation may be completely useless and > > even stupid in another. > > 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. What exactly are we talking about? Is it just NetworkManager/s-c-network, or does /etc/init.d/network have something to do with this too? I'm almost sure it's the latter. If NM will be able to read /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcgf-*, do ifcfg/ip route stuff and quit I'll agree that it can replace s-c-network. But I'm sure it won't, cause we already have a program/script which does that... and there is no need to create a new one for the same job. > > 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. I'm not trying to block changes (and I'm sure I can't) but it looks like others are trying to block the "old way". I use NetworkManager myself on my laptop, but I don't use it on my desktop, cause a) It *never* changes networks b) It bridges eth and wlan together. And about PulseAudio :) I have the same problems with it as You do. It creates a lot of sound skipping/stopping/hanging and games not playing problems for me. It doesn't work at all on my laptop, but with F10 (and updates :) ) it became bearable on my desktop. So I'm using it (at least trying to) there. But even if it starts to work ideally on every machine I use, I still want to be able to use bare ALSA when I want so. > > -- > Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin > ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
