On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 15:17 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:13 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> I agree with the desire to maintain only one tool. However, NM is
>> extremely desktop oriented, and there seems to include no hint of an
>> intention to support the complex setups that are possible with the old
>> ifcfg infra.
>
> Really? Most of the work over the past couple of years in NM seems to
> be aimed at trying to support these cases as opposed to just the
> "simple" desktop case
That's odd -- I've never seen any of it. Are there good examples of
how you configure a server to do special stuff with it? Or a
'scripting network-manager' guide somewhere?
Much of the work going from NM 0.6 -> 0.7 has been around things like
multiple interfaces up at once, static configs and system settings. All
of which are things which matter far more for your typical server than a
desktop.
> And rather than focusing on nm-tool and exactly what it exposes,
it's
> probably more interesting to look at the dbus interfaces/daemon
> capabilities. Yes, I'll be one of the first to say it's painful to
> write code interacting with dbus :-) -- but, it is very flexible and
And
- it's very far removed from the stuff that a unix sysadmin deals with
- it forces me to have a script running to listen to dbus events :-/
Lots of things in a modern system are far removed from the stuff a unix
sysadmin has traditionally dealt with. That doesn't make it necessarily
"bad". And as Seth pointed out, this "all new is bad" or "all
new is
good" dichotomy is a part of the problem
Jeremy