[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> ... and since it’s not event-based you have to hard-code the way your
> network is set up.

I think this is the vital difference -- those that prefer ifupdown do so
because they prefer to be in tight control of what is happening on their
systems, whereas those that prefer NM don't want to be bothered about
networking, they just want things to work.

When someone wanders into an Internet cafe and plugs a wire into their
Ethernet port, they just want a notification to tell them that they're

If some dimwit sysadmin at my co-lo plugs something new into my server I
want _absolutely_ _nothing_ to occur, not even a new process -- a syslog
message would be fine.

I don't want to have to learn a lot of complicated tricks to turn all
the cleverness in NM off to achieve this, because an upgrade is bound to
introduce new cleverness that I'll then need to learn to turn off, and
each repeat of that is going to be a painful discovery.  I also don't
want a lot of code I don't routinely use sitting on my disks waiting for
someone to discover an exploit.

So, clearly one size is never going to fit all.

We then seem to have a choice of installing something that works well
for one group, and giving the others the chance to add the other (say,
by including NM in the desktop task), or installing the other and
getting the people who want less to remove it -- given that we've
already implemented the first, and it seems to work fine, why would we
want to force server installs of Debian (which may well be in the
majority) to uselessly default to installing software that will either
do a poor job for the life of the server, or incur the additional effort
of removing it?

On the other hand, if NM based udeb can do a better job of guessing
what's going on from within D-I, and can be preseeded to not bother
probing for things that are inappropriate, and can be persuaded to
configure ifupdown for the server scenario (with no need to put N-M,
dbus, etc onto the target) then fine, let's use it in D-I.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgpo_UNFcLJ6g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: