Re: network-manager as default? No!
* Fernando Lemos <email@example.com> [110415 15:26]:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Patrick Schoenfeld
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> I've always believed that peoply chose NM for simplicity. And I can
> >> understand that. It's simple because it doesn't support anything
> >> "complex", including common VPN setups.
> > ifupdown does not support any VPN setup at all. how does that fit in
> > your argumentation?
> Btw, not sure this hasn't been mentioned before but:
Last I looked at n-m-vpnc it had many show-stoppers.
It was not able to cope with some routing strangenesses related
to the nameservers needed at the different stages of creating the
connection, I was not able to easily globally set the group password
and it did not offer to ask for the user name together with the
password. With wicd one can simply configure some script to execute
and thus everything can be made work easily.
Fighting old reports of people having problems with new anectodes of
everything working out of the box will not convice people.
You have to show that the actual problems are solved, not only the
> But nevermind, this thread is not about considering technical merits
> or sane defaults, it's all about letting the world know about your
> preferences, right?
Why not discuss topics instead of insulting people? Thanks in
Bernhard R. Link