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

Re: can we (fully) fix/integrate NetworkManager (preferred) or release-goal its decommissioning

On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 02:41 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Apparently it is still not clear to you: NM by *default* does not export
> any wireless connections from /e/n/i to *any* user by the simple fact
> that managed=false by *default*.
Well ok... but that's what one needs to set when one at least somehow
want's to use both NM and ifupdown. Or did I understand wrong that NM
ignores any interfaces mentioned in /e/n/i, if managed=false?

> What follows is a lot of misconceptions and biased views and you
> conclude with "Will we continue to live with the current disease?".
Well I guess by reporting tickets against the package and upstream, with
things that IMHO should work differently and ideas for enhancement I
made clear enough that I don't simply hate it or so, but want to improve
If you, as maintainer, feel/felt offended, than I'm really sorry and
apologize,... that wasn't my intention; if it were I would have disabled
NM at my system, saved some hours of writing ideas for improvements, and
started lobbying around at all different packages, to drop NM support.

And the "disease" is not NM iself (at least not in my opinion) it's
rather the improper integration of NM with the "native"

After all, if NM's integration with ifupdown and the other native tools
(ppp, vpnc, strongswan, etc.) and their configuration would be as good
as I'd like to see it, then most if not all reasons for NM bashing would
fall away.
Because even if NM continues it's philosophy of begin a replacement for
these "native tools",... no could largely complain anymore when both are
well integrated and can just happily co-exist.

>> So no,... don't want to spread FUD ;)
> So my inital point still stands.
Well,... forgive me if I don't always know all lines of the code and the
details behind them.
I just think I have a valid use case (want to use both, ifupdown and NM
well integrated),... and this leads to all kinds of problems.
Assuming that I'm not totally stupid, I came to the conclusion that
there might be issues.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply to: