On Tuesday 06 January 2009 19:46:06 Craig White wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:05 -0500, Mark Haney wrote: > > Tom Horsley wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:30:40 -0500 > > > > > > Mark Haney wrote: > > >> I mean, why offer > > >> the options in 's-c-n' if they aren't going to be implemented? > > > > > > Because virtually everything in the vicinity of NetworkManager > > > is broken and needs another year or so of development to > > > work right? :-). > > > > Good Lord, if it's taken this long to make it even semi-functional, why > > bother? I mean as far as I'm concerned NM is a joke. > > ---- > One of NetworkManager's missions is to utterly frustrate and harass > those that make no effort whatsoever to understand it's purpose and just > want to muscle everything as root like they've always done. > > I agree that it's much easier to just disable it and then dismiss it as > broken than it is to actually figure out what it's good for and how to > live with it. > > I would bet dollars to doughnuts that everyone who dismisses > NetworkManager out of hand also disables SELinux too. > If only life were that simple, Craig. When you've tried everything that has been suggested and it still doesn't work, it's frustrating. (Though I'm not adamant that the problem is actually NM) Anne
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.