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

Re: network-manager as default? No!

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:42:43PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 10:53, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >On 04/04/2011 12:56 PM, 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?
> >
> >Yes. For a distribution which is targeted to support servers properly,
> > yes, definitely. For everything else there is Ubuntu.
> >
> I sincerely hope that you're joking… At least, the rest of the project
> doesn't share this view. It's like saying that "Desktop users are second
> class citizens", which is plain wrong!

He didn't say anything you're implying. Some misunderstanding, I guess.
Debian, as a universal OS, needs to support Servers and Desktops and ...
properly. Any solution thus needs to handle all those cases properly.

Then add the usual Ubuntu bashing: for all who don't need that kind of
universality, there's Ubuntu (which, btw, also delivers server

No-one is second class. Or, if I understand bzed right, Ubuntu is. :)


 .''`.   Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org>               www.jhr-online.de
: :'  :  Debian Developer                                 www.debian.org
`. `'`   Member of the Linux Foundation                    www.linux.com
  `-     Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe      www.fsfe.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: