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

Re: network-manager as default? No!



On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:26:06 +0000 (UTC), Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:13 +0200, 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.
> 
> Surely a person managing a server can do "aptitude install ifupdown 
> network-manager-"?

You appear to want to inflict extra work on large swathes of our
users.  If that is the case, I'd like to see some sort of justification
for that.

What is it that installing N-M on servers will gain us or our users?

I don't perceive the advantage. Many other people in this thread don't
seem to perceive it.  I don't believe that anyone's even hinted at the
advantage, but perhaps I missed it.

In the absence of such justification, I don't see what's wrong with the
status quo (i.e. N-M on Gnome desktops by default, ifupdown elsewhere by
default, with both choices entirely overridable by the user)

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: pgp1C0RYWcbhE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: