On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 19:04 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: > > No, the pre-network manager world was not better for those systems. So for > those systems it is perhaps an advance. But that doesn't justify breaking > it for the other 90+% (or, in my case, 100%). I don't use Fedora for most > of my boxes (they are CentOS): what scares me is that this is going to > show up in Redhat/CentOS one of these days, and then I'm in a whole world > of hurt. If I'm starting the first hard-wired DHCP interface after boot on > a system that hasn't declared a hostname, NM *has* to be able to set the > hostname. For the cases where you need to do advanced configuration, and NetworkManager can't handle it, you can turn it off and use the old network service. It's a lot easier for the class of folks that need this to do it, than for the class of folks who need easy to use casual networking to work easily for them to switch off 'network' and turn on 'NetworkManager'. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
