Plans for the desktop beyond Fedora 7

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 11 May 2007 20:52:55 Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Now that I'm reading the page a little closer, I see that NetworkManager
>> should also work on servers. I'm not sure I understand the rationale
>> behind this. Does anyone care to elaborate?
> 
> If we're going to move toward NetworkManager everywhere (which we really 
> should, multiple config stacks == bad), NM needs to work well in a server 
> env, static IPs, brought up without login, various other server related 
> needs.
> 

So the obvious question would be; Are we going to move toward
NetworkManager?

I agree that having multiple config stacks is bad, but the problem here
is choice (where did I hear that before?). As long as we're not forcing
the user / system admin to choose between s-c-n/NM, and/or service
network vs. NM, you'll have multiple config stacks. The problem may not
be solved by enabling upstream NM to take over s-c-n functionality and
stability and just force the use of NM over s-c-n, rather then just
letting (forcing) someone choose between the two configuration systems,
right?

-kanarip