Re: different internet speed in debian and smart phone
Hi.
Please do not top-post.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:07:30AM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> Reading this thread, remembering my annoyance with NetworkManager, I ran
> across this article by RedHat's NetManager developer Thomas Haller. From
> last year. Yes I suppose it's promotional, but he sorts thru some of the
> high-level issues that software like it has to address.
> https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2020/04/10/why-networkmanager/
Whoever wrote this definitely likes to omit some details, and twist some
others. Few examples:
> We have NetworkManager, which is a freedesktop.org project. There is
> also ConnMan, netctl (on ArchLinux), systemd-networkd, wicd
> (unmaintained), wicked (on SUSE).
Note the absence of ifupdown, which is still shipped to paying Red Hat
customers.
Note the absence of ifupdown (same name, different implementation),
which is still considered the primary way of configuring network in
Debian.
And last, but not least, note the absence of netplan, which is the
primary way of configuring network in Ubuntu.
And the brilliant lumping of systemd-networkd along with the others,
while systemd-networkd was supposed to be One Standard Way Of Doing It
On Linux. Priceless.
> NetworkManager works well on the phone,
Sorry, what?
> the server,
Man's entitled to his option. Using a "stateful process" for a typical
"static IP, one default gateway" server is an overkill, but the link
contains "gnome.org", so this is expected.
> in a container,
On the contrary, in a well-designed container any means of configuring
the network from the inside are redundant at best. A good container
starts with the network that's configured already, and cannot change a
single bit of it while it's running.
> on a notebook and on a workstation.
Note the absence of "on a router" in that list.
> Wherever you have NetworkManager, it works and behaves the same.
I must me missing something, but NetworkManager on Debian does not
generate those wonderful /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/* files like it
does in RHEL.
To sum it up - if NetworkManager works for you - more power to you.
If it does not - the thing was designed to be an over-engineered behemoth
(and the article admits it to a certain extent), you've got exactly what
was advertised to you.
Personally, I'll take "other solutions" designed with the "focus on
configuring the network" over the "configuration daemon that serves the
needs of applications". Because, while it may sound strange, I like my
network to be configured if I happen to do it.
Reco
Reply to: