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

Re: network-manager as default? No!

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:03:40AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:22:53AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This argument has been rehashed again and again, without ever
> > confronting it to a reality check.
> > 
> > Since this bug has been fixed several months ago, can we move on now?
> For the record, this was (at least) bugs #432322 and #439917, and I'm extremely
> pleased that the issues have been resolved.  Well done and thank you to all
> involved.
> Could those thread participants who have gripes from their last NM experience
> many years ago please confirm that their gripes still apply before continuing
> with the discussion?

What is the newest version of NM that is semi-sane then?

I've heard a long diatribe from my brother (an admin at a medium-sized ISP,
so not exactly a clueless person) just last weekend about NM failing hard on
a fresh squeeze install.  Which was met with horror stories from a friend
about it on new Ubuntu laptops, all the problems instantly went away the
moment NM was purged.  I did not listen closely, and just nodded.

This might be circumstantial evidence, but it's not exactly encouraging
enough to give NM a chance.  And yet I just tried on a desktop with a single
wired network card and a virtualbox install.  It immediately killed IPv6
connectivity and the vboxnet interface.  I'm very sorry but I'm not going to
investigate any closer.

Let's see what it is supposed to be able to do:
* simple DHCP setups
* simple wireless setups

The former works just fine without network-manager, even without any manual
configuration at all.  The latter has alternatives that don't mess with
non-wlan interfaces.  Thus, what exactly are you trying to fix by installing
network-manager by default?

1KB		// Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
		//	Never attribute to stupidity what can be
		//	adequately explained by malice.

Reply to: