[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)

Hello Philip Hands,

Am 2011-04-06 10:13:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> 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.

This is exactly what I mean!  I do not want to be bothered on  a  server
with a tool which does not work and break all the times!

Yes I have tried NM, but isnstalling this crap by default break  my  Sun
and IBM Sevrers.

I do not wan to to be bothered by Seting up NM and want o have a  SIMPLE
ifupdownd which does not bother me with forcimg me to drive 2x 500km  to
the datacenter (I am in Strasbourg and the datacenter  is  in  Nürnberg)
the get my server back running

> 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
> online.

I want the same to which is not possibel with NM.

Installing NM by default will break systems which where running the last
12 years without flaws.

> 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.

And what s if NM Cut-Off our Internet conenction?  This is  what  happen
to me.  NM is NOT ROCKSOLID!  ifupdown is proofen to work perfectly.

> 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,

This will not work, becase installing NM by default will break server
systems and you will have no access manymore the the server.

> 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?

Because it does not work and we definitively have not ANY  event  driven
things on a server.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
    Michelle Konzack

##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ######################
   Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux

itsystems@tdnet France EURL       itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability)
Owner Michelle Konzack            Owner Michelle Konzack

Apt. 917 (homeoffice)
50, rue de Soultz                 Kinzigstraße 17
67100 Strasbourg/France           77694 Kehl/Germany
Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil         Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil
Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix

<http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/>  <http://www.flexray4linux.org/>
<http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/>         <http://www.can4linux.org/>

Jabber linux4michelle@jabber.ccc.de
ICQ    #328449886

Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/

Attachment: signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: