Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I feel s-c-network should be revived and NetworkManager be made
>>> strictly optional.
>>>
>> I'd actually have to disagree. I *love* NM on my Asus (netbook).
>>
> Congratulations.
>
> For me,
> - NM doesn't work on any machine w/ WLAN
> - NM is just bloated ballast on machines w/o WLAN
>
I believe you are in a very small minority with that view.
>> It's
>>
>> great for laptops (or other computers that tend to move around and need to
>> deal with "foreign" networks,
>>
> Seemingly it's sufficiently functional for some people in such situation. I
> don't have such demands.
>
It's more than functional for most people in most situations.
>> especially wireless networks), and it's "okay" for desktops.
>>
> Yes, it works "sufficiently" on my desktops, but ... at which price?
> ... Instability caused by silly "dark magic",
>
Oh please.
> ... no cli
> ... no network profiles
>
Both valid concerns.
> ... bloat
>
Made up over used word thrown around as as a subject non specific
critic of any software someone doesn't like
Come on... :)
A full-fledged daemon running all the time sitting on the system bus
waking up every few seconds (to eat CPU) which is going to do
ifconfig eth0 111.111.111.111/24 up
ip route add default via 111.111.111.222
echo "nameserver 111.111.111.123" > /etc/resolv.conf
And do it only *once* every reboot (which can easily be 30+ days).
This makes sense neither for servers nor for desktops.
It's useful for laptops which travel a lot (not even all laptops, cause
many of them are used as desktop-replacements).
What I'm asking for is to allow free choice, cause , you know, there is
no such thing as "one true way",
i.e. what is the only way in one situation may be completely useless and
even stupid in another.
> My network isn't compliated (static IPs, static topologic, yp based autofs,
> DHCP).
> It's just that NM can't handle it properly.
>
Since I've been told that NM can handle static IPs now, i don't see
why any of the above would be a problem.