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

Re: network-manager as default? No!

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:11:27AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
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 desktop[1]", anyway).

I don’t even know why NM should be on a normal desktop.
My first (and last) contact with NM was not a good one. I was doing a remote upgrade of a desktop and suddenly the system was unreachable. After a reboot it worked, but shortly the system was unreachable again. Then I noticed that the default gateway was missing. The desktop didn’t have a configured eth0, but two configured vlan interfaces. NM thought, hey let’s configure eth0, and tried to configure eth0 via DHCP and deleted the default gateway. Since then, the first thing I do is to disable this crap. Besides I don’t have any desktop with WLAN interface. So ifupdown is more than enough to configure the network.

Some people say that NM is good with WLAN. Maybe. Since I don’t touch NM again, I always used ifupdown and wpasupplicant with success. But I rarely use WLAN. If NM is really good with WLAN it should only be part of the laptop task and never touch cable networks.

The only thing that I miss from ifupdown (and I configured bonds, bridges and vlans) is a good IPv6 support. I can’t separately activate or deactivate IPv4 or IPv6 parts of an interface.

Shade and sweet water!


| Stephan Seitz             E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: