Thilo Six wrote:
I'd have to agree. I think network-manager does more harm than good many times. I installed and configured some servers for a small business that wanted gui's on their servers so network manager was installed by default. The servers were multi-homed and I only configured one interface to begin with. It was pointed to one of the two gateways, but when I started the server after installation it kept insisting on using the other gateway and obtaining an address via dhcp, even though I had given the one interface I configured a static address. Turns out n-m was using one of the non-configured, and unlisted in /etc/network/interfaces nic's to access the internet as n-m will not use a manually configured interface. I had to uninstall n-m to get the machine to access the correct gateway.Joe Hart wrote the following on 18.03.2007 21:11:Thilo Six wrote:Douglas Allan Tutty wrote the following on 18.03.2007 20:24:Ben, I've been following this thread but not commenting since I don't do gnome. Do I understand correctly that you boot stright to gnome, start a download and get poor network components but if you do a gnome network setup thingy it improves? I'm also not clear if it improves if you do /etc/initd./networking restart?I would be curious to eliminate gnome as a problem.<snip>hmm waitmay it be network manager?You mean network mangler. That's what it is to a desktop gateway.sorry never heard of network mangler. what i mean is: http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/net/network-manager
What when you stop it Ben?sudo /etc/dbus-1/event.d/26NetworkManagerDispatcher stopsudo /etc/dbus-1/event.d/25NetworkManager stopDoug.bye Thiloi am on Ubuntu 2.6 KDE - some friend of mine What is this supposed to mean?Ubuntu 2.6 KDE is like a smart way of saying Ubuntu GNU/Linux 2.6 refers to linux kernel and kde is obviously not ubuntu although when it was "created" it was a mistake by a newcomer i like the "deeper" meaning behind itJoebye Thilo