On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:25:12PM -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > Uhm, no one is forcing you to use NetworkManager just yet so there is > not really any regression. Btw, the price we pay to support two > networking configuration stacks is higher than you think. By two networking configuration stacks you mean the traditional method and the NetworkManager way? Wouldn't it have been better to have an actual design ... rather than thinking up a GUI interface to some use case, then starting coding? Pete's condescension is right on target: core Linux components are being replaced by people who, by their own admission, "hate Unix." It seems that an "unusual requirement" is one that is difficult and inconvenient for that other operating system, i.e., a requirement that foregoes the monkey pressing buttons in front of a bitmapped display. Unix/Linux carries years of baggage, mis-designed features, and half-baked implementations. But today's GNOME hackers seem to have completely missed the value of (1) text, (2) tools, and (3) domain-specific little languages and protocols. One area where Unix went somewhat astray is that script and config syntax differences created unnecessary impedance [the original point of this thread] -- the Lisp machine folks had that much right. Two decades later, it's easy to see that domain-specific languages are best built without inventing lots of arcane syntax; these days S-exprs have been replaced by XML, XSLT (*vomit*), and worse. Unfortunately, simply stuffing name/value config pairs in a file is not the same as domain-specific design. I'm not holding my breath waiting for support for 20-year-old "unusual requirements" to be bolted on later. Bill Rugolsky -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
