On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:25 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well, eventually the connection editor could potentially replace the GUI > > > functionality of s-c-n and ifup/ifdown could be pointed at NM, but we're > > > not there yet. There's a few more device types that NM would need to > > > support (mainly PPPoE/PPPoATM connections, good ISDN, etc) before we > > > could think about replacing anything. They are going to be parallel but > > > mutually exclusive for the time being. Also there will be some people > > > who won't ever want to use NM for some setups even though NM could work > > > for them; but that's fine. > > > > Are those people...looking at using zeroconf. I get the reasoning for > > avoiding NM in a more controlled networking situation... but zeroconf > > seems like NM's bread and butter to me... but what the hell do i know. > > > > -jef > > > How about static IPs and multiple concurrent networks? I couldn't get > either to work with network manager in F8 A single static IP per interface works pretty well if you use the NM in updates-testing (svn3370) and have set it up to use static IP in system-config-network. Multiple IPs per interface will come eventually. It'll even work before login. Multiple concurrent networks are what I'm working on right now; pretty good progress here and I hope to land something in the next week or so in F9, and when it's pretty solid it will also show up in F8. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
