Re: network-manager as default? No!
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:56:23AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
> > permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
> > to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
> > to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
> > routing, QoS, etc.
> Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
> handle all of these? If it could be easily substituted for another solution
> that was better suited to tasks which a majority of users will not use, then
> surely that is fine.
> (although I'd like to get NM and bridging working more nicely personally, I
> consider this more of a feature bug than an RC one)
Except that it'd also be a regression from what's possible on current
default server installs, since it already works. And any regression should
be countered by strong motivation for why it's important to throw the baby
out with the bathwater, and hopefully some plans for going and finding the
baby later on.
Did i miss the part where somebody explained what the user benefit of having
network-manager on a server was? (apart from "then it's the same as your
 although it isn't, unless you're installing gnome on your server, but then
you're installing a desktop not a server, and you'd get it by default
anyway, and then what's the point?