Jesse Keating wrote:
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,I realize very well that OSS is to be used under term "AS IS". So I know I have no right to complain about what is offered. And be sure I am very greatfull about everything that fedora offers. And that is what we have to thank the developers for. So THANKS.
But on the other end I use RedHat since the Redhat 3.x days, about more then 10 years ago. What strikes me is that a product, how promising it is/can be, becomes the default without it functioning 99.9% right. With a 10 year history of 100% functioning network in RedHat, being confronted with none functioning network after a installation process, does not make me very happy.
The solution of correcting an installation by hand instead of anaconda supporting this, is not a reward for 10 year of using and advocating a product. My first and most important reason for using RH in favor of MS was the better possibility to tell my computer what to do, instead of my computer telling me what to do, as is very normal in the MS world. At the moment I see NM as a product that tells me what to do, so it brings me back to the MS world. And I don't like that.
I was very supprised to see the deactivation of IPv6 functionality in anaconda simply because NM did not yet support it. As I mostly use fedora as a server solution, IPv6 is more interesting to me and historically has more right to be in anaconda than NM is. So I would have been more happy if the implementation of NM would have been halted until support for IPv6 was realized or at least NM would not have been made the default.
This way, in order to gain new users in the graphical market section, you frighten of your old "customers". To me this does not seem to be a good idea.
At the moment I would advocate for a user choice NM/network-service at least until the moment that NM will be able to perform all the tasks network service does/did with the same level of quality and without the need to post configure. In fact I would be happy to always have the clear choice between configuring parameters myself and letting my computer decide what it thinks is best.
So far my contribution to the community, but developers I don't ask to stop developing!
Koos.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
