System Config Tools Cleanup Project - tools to eliminate/replace

[Bill Crawford]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 06:56:08 Arthur Pemberton wrote:

> What's the point of asking for that when you can already turn
> NetworkManager off. If NetworkManager fills all the role provided by
> s-c-network, there's no point in having two ways to do the same thing.
> I started off by saying that there are several things that
> NetworkManager doesn't do yet so s-c-network shouldn't be removed yet.

The worry is that the "NM can replace this" argument is heading towards removal 
of the "old" way of doing things, and for a few people that's annoying. It is 
not a true replacement; it does very different things.

> Some of these things bring change and seem to make some people overly
> nervous, as long you can do things the old way, try not to block
> change that is useful to everyone else.  It's just like PulseAudio, it
> helps a lot of people, but it works terribly for me, so I just removed
> it. No need to go complaining about its existence.

We're not "complaining about its existence" we are objecting to it being forced 
as a "replacement" in all situations, even though it a) doesn't really support 
all those situations, and b) is unnecessary in at least some of them.

No one is "blocking change that is useful to everyone else", some people object 
to having this change forced on them ...

The "it still works" argument is disingenuous when the NM solution is being 
touted as a complete replacement for the "old" way, ... we're not stupid, we 
know the plan is to remove the "old" way of doing things completely. Some of us 
think this should be postponed until NM can *actually* be a replacement, and I 
for one would like it if NM would "get out of the way" ... I have a single 
wired ethernet connection on this machine, and no matter how much RAM I have, 
using some of it semi-permanently to support NM in the background is a waste.

Not saying you shouldn't have your NM, just want to be sure I won't be forced to 
use it :o)