Re: resolvconf troubles
On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 15:48:27 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2016 15:15:36 Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with
> > > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which
> > > > > for years I did automatically at installation time.
> > > >
> > > > On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> > > > or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> > > > connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> > > > likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection
> > > > from ten years ago.
> > >
> > > Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> > > the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
> > >
> > > Whatever floats your boat.
> >
> > This is not a quote from a private mail:
> > > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
> > > that puppy with extreme prejudice.
>
> It is not a quote from a private mail, but you have taken it out of context.
That's the nature of quoting. And it was the first item in the mail (the
OP never mentioned N-M) so it sets the tone for the remainder of it.
> It was advice on list to an individual and solved that individual's problem.
The OP was not seeking advice on N-M, was he? Leaving out references to
N-M (and not mis-naming it) would not have detracted from the usefulness
of the post.
> It might well solve the problem of anyone else in the same position as the
> OP. My comment was not advice to anyone, merely pointing out that if you
> happen to want to remove N-M, it is easy in Debian and does not require
> removing half the system, (another quote).
That is useful to know.
--
Brian.
Reply to: