Re: System Config Tools Cleanup Project - tools to eliminate/replace

[Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de>]

Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de> wrote:
> > Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > Actually, I feel s-c-network should be revived and NetworkManager be made
> > > > strictly optional.
> > > I'd actually have to disagree. I *love* NM on my Asus (netbook).
> > Congratulations.
> >
> > For me,
> > - NM doesn't work on any machine w/ WLAN
> > - NM is just bloated ballast on machines w/o WLAN
>
> I believe you are in a very small minority with that view.
Please stop using this ole bolshevist argument. Just because you don't 
see a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

> > >  It's
> > >
> > > great for laptops (or other computers that tend to move around and need to
> > > deal with "foreign" networks,
> > Seemingly it's sufficiently functional for some people in such situation. I
> > don't have such demands.
>
> It's more than functional for most people in most situations.
>
> > > especially wireless networks), and it's "okay" for desktops.
> > Yes, it works "sufficiently" on my desktops, but ... at which price?
> > ... Instability caused by silly "dark magic",
>
> Oh please.
... Yes, NM is responsible for pulling in dozens of unnecessary 
daemons/services.

> > ... no cli
> > ... no network profiles
>
> Both valid concerns.

IMO, both hard show stoppers, disqualifying NM from being branded a 
replacement for s-c-networking.

> > ... bloat
>
> Made up over used word thrown around as as a subject non specific
> critic of any software someone doesn't like
Do yourself a favor and check how much bloat (and potential sources 
errors and vulnerabilities) NM pulls in.

In case you haven't noticed yet: In comparison to s-c-networking, this 
list is very long.

> > My network isn't compliated (static IPs, static topologic, yp based autofs,
> > DHCP).
> > It's just that NM can't handle it properly.
>
> Since I've been told that NM can handle static IPs now, i don't see
> why any of the above would be a problem.
"told" is the key word ... reality speaks a different language.

The problem with it: Due to NM's black magic and the huge set of 
services it is trying to interact with, it's very difficult to identify 
the origin of problems.

One prominent and well-known case many people have complained about:
NM's way of dns handling.

Ralf