On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Thanks for the update. I've had some bad experiences with NM before, but I like the idea behind it. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
