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

Re: network-manager as default? No!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:53:02 +0100, Jon Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> Having said all of the above, and the thread being where it is now, I have to
> admit I can't remember what the value proposition was in the first place. Time
> to re-read...

So, you just failed to provide any justification for a change to the
status quo, while blathering on about how people who install servers
ought to be able to reconfigure stuff - is that right?



Hello, is this thing on?  *tap* *tap*


addressing one of your earlier questions:
> Or in other words, if a server user does an attended install via d-i, doesn't
> trigger expert mode and accepts the defaults for most questions,  is it wrong
> if they end up with NetworkManager?


Unless and until someone explains why they would be happy about that.

If we end up with the support channels full of people being told "Well,
didn't you know, if you want it to keep on working you need to strip out
N-M and just hardwire your IP address in /etc/network/interfaces" then
we've done a disservice to each and every one of those users.

Even for folks like myself, who are perfectly capable of scripting an
install, I occasionally do server installs for friends simply because
they have a spare machine, and I have a USB stick on my keyring with d-i
on it.

I don't really want to have to remember all the tweaks that I normally
script.  I don't see why I should have to unless there is some reason
that the resulting setup is going to be better for a larger proportion
of installs taking into account whatever the tasks selected , and other
debconf answers, imply about the target machine.

So, while my personal preference is wicd, I'm completely relaxed about
the Desktop task installing N-M, just as I am that it installs Gnome
rather than my choice of xmonad (clearly, xmonad would be an insane
choice of default desktop for Debian).

On the other hand, nobody from the "Isn't N-M great" camp seems willing
to explain why I'd want it in preference to ifupdown on a server,
particularly a co-lo remotely admined server.

In all other aspects, Debian takes the approach that if code is not
needed on a machine, we don't install it -- we don't do the RedHat thing
of piling on apache, but disabling it, we simply don't install it.

For a machine with a static IP address, it seems pretty obvious that you
want to set that address at boot time and then leave it alone regardless
of what else might happen.

Perhaps the shiny new version of N-M has a mode where it realises
its work is done and quits, but I have a suspicion that it does not do

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: pgpTo7BB3mOVL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: