On 2012-08-29 6:17, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We've got Network Manager, which is also doing it's job nicely and
won't
give you any headaches if you prevent it from stepping on anybody
else's
toes. Or try to make it manage a thousand devices, like on System z.
*** Network Manager is just another daemon created for a task
which historically often did not need any daemons. It's almost as if
the new generation of Unix hackers wants to redo everything -
in x10 or x100 times bloated and more complex way than it was done
before.
<snip>
So, what properties should a new network management framework have?
===================================================================
...
Beyond such aspects, there are a number of desirable properties.
One, a modern network management framework should run as a service.
The
kernel offers a plethora of notifications via rtnetlink, and
increasingly
expects user space to react to these (for instance in the IPv6 area).
Running a network management daemon allows us to track the state,
detect
changes, and react to them appropriately.
There appears to be some cognitive dissonance in the document. It seems
odd to criticize NetworkManager solely for being a bloated, complex
daemon, and then, having dismissed NM, in describing the ideal
next-generation network management framework, declare that it ought to
be a bloated complex daemon...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
