On 05/21/2013 04:25 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On May 21, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> Am 21.05.2013 22:02, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>> Maybe someone can explain to me the use case for ONBOOT= where its value isn't tied >>> to the current network state. I wasted an inordinate, unreasonable amount of time >>> trying to figure this out before I realized what was going on >> >> why should ONBOOT tied to the *current* state? > > Common and reasonable user expectation, at least in a GUI. Maybe common, definitely not reasonable. >> it simply controls if a interface is brought up at >> boot or not - not more and not less > > It's an unusual convention. The unusual convention is clearly delineated by the language around it. In Windows, eth interfaces are either Enabled or Disabled. There is no on or off. You can't bring up an eth interface with Enabling it. Because there is no distinction between on/off and enabled/disabled, it is not possible to bring up an interface and not have it come up at the next reboot. Fedora (and all linux OSes for that matter) simply offer two distinctly different states that can be utilized: on/off, enabled/disabled. You are basically saying "This isn't the way Windows does it, even though what you offer is more flexible, so do away with it so it doesn't confuse us simple folk", and you are doing so in the presence of language in the graphical interface that is pretty clear about the specific intent of on/off and connect automatically versus don't connect automatically. So even though you have the language you need to know that your expectations from Windows don't match what Linux offers, you are bitching that your expectations from Windows don't match what linux offers. This is where, if I controlled NetworkManager, I would say "please don't waste our time with an argument of 'Windows dumbs everything down for me, please do the same'" (I for one have had enough of the system UI folks capitulating to these sorts of arguments to last me a lifetime...but then again, they capitulate so often that I guess I should expect the fact that we have two distinct and usable states to go away in the near future now that someone has rung the "Windows doesn't do it that way" bell) > >> the use case is easy and simple: >> i have a spare network for testings on one of my machines >> most of the time it is not useed and so not started >> if i need it "ifup eth1" > > What is the negative side effect of it being On at reboot, when it was left On at the time you initiated the reboot? Who's to say that on the reboot it is still connnected? And depending on your system configuration, having extra connections can slow down and complicate the boot process. And if both interfaces are dhcp managed, the dhcp configurations may be conflicting in nature (for example both can define a default route and you may want the default route of the second interface to only be used when you have manually brought the interface up and overrode the normal interface, where as having this happen every time at boot would not be what you want). > I don't disable my cabled connection or wireless connections, just because I only use one at a time. I leave them both on and I expect a modern OS to use the available one. If both are available, I should have a way to set their priority of use in the UI. > > > Chris Murphy > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
