Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2009, 01:56 -0500 schrieb Arthur Pemberton:
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.
If your desktop is connected to the internet via ethernet, what is the
use of NetworkManager? Or if the desktop is not connected to the
internet at all, what's it's use?
The same reason I first tried NetworkManager and got thoroughly
burned... the base network script don't handle losing and resuming
connections. Listen, I've been burned by NM in its early days, and I
recognize that it isn't ready yet. I just don't support those who say
that NM should be retired.
Look, guys, there is a huge misunderstanding involved in every
discussion about NM.
Those who "protect" NM try to protect it in every situation. They are
sure everyone who
wants to use anything except NM want NM dead and buried face down.
They always say that every
"normal" person's use cases are covered by NM, and if it isn't good for
you - you are stupid,
you're on your own and you should burn in hell, and also you try to
block changes
which are good for everyone.
And those who "attack" NM (including me :) ) think (and I hope they are
wrong) that
"the others" (yep.. the ones from ABC's series :) ) are going to force
them use something,
which they don't want and it is going to cause them a lot of unbearable
pain...
What I think everyone will agree with is that both NM and
/etc/init.d/network have cons and pros
and that both have their users. It's also clear that NM's features
aren't super-set of
"service network"'s and the opposite isn't true too.
I also think there will be no objections if I say:
One should always be able to setup everything he wants with
ifconfig/iproute2
If You don't agree with it, think about a completely hosed system...
Then do "ldd `which ifconfig`" and "ldd `which NetworkManager`" and
guess which one
has more chance to die because of a few bad blocks on the HDD.
If we put all this thoughts (which look like facts to me) together we
get that it's possible
and makes sense to maintain "service network" next to NM *forever*.
I think if we all can agree on the last sentence it will make all the
future discussions
much more constructive.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
