Problem setting up wired networking

Jerry Amundson jamundso at gmail.com
Fri Nov 14 06:14:31 UTC 2008


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 22:28 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
>> I propose that this 82 message thread covers those items.
>> Yet, the insiders are telling everyone else that all is right in nm world.
>>
>> Whatever. For the record, I see the potential,  and it's good, but
>> thus far this thread is the voice of the masses falling of deaf ears,
>> and that's bad.
>
> Can you give me actual examples of where I said everything was all
> right?  Can you give me examples where the valid complaints of the users
> are falling on my deaf ears?  Can you give me examples of where I'm not
> being helpful to those trying to use NetworkManager, or providing
> information to those who have stopped using it due to past experiences?

Gladly. Hope you take criticism well. I know I have to in my job...

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:43 +0000, Tony Molloy wrote:
>> For a wired connection run the network service and disable the
>> NetworkManager
>> service.
>
> This is just bad advice.

When, in fact, this is exactly what has been needed at times for a
functional network, states plainly, "I'm not listening".

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:36 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> So NetworkManager now knows how to set the hostname properly?
>
> Now that all depends on your definition of properly.  There are cases
> where changing the hostname of a running system will break other running
> software.  It's not a perfect world, neither option is that great.

That's not helpful. Change the f(*&ing hostname if that's what we've
asked it to do.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:02 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> Jesse, system-config-network worries me.  The hardware tab tells me that my
>> wired connection, Realtek 8101E, is eth1, but the devices tab says that it is
>> eth0.  I see there is a network script for ifcfg-eth0, but not eth1, so I
>> guess that's the correct (as well as logical) one.
>>
>> Unless you have some ideas on something that I can manually edit to deal with
>> this, I guess I need to file a bug.
>
> Forgive me, but what is the desired outcome of your configuration?
> Hopefully you can achieve that without having to invoke
> system-config-network.

In other words, everything is OK here in nm world. You must be trying
some bizarre corner case you silly goose.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:18 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> Point taken. However, I have been setting hostnames via DHCP for years
>> (both Fedora and CentOS on over 300 machines), and have never had anything
>> break because of it (not one single breakage of any kind).
>
> While on the other hand, I would constantly have X break, no new windows
> could launch, audio break, not able to re-connect to the daemon, so on
> and so forth.  It's an imperfect system.

In other words, we didn't design it for that, so we don't expect it to
work, you're doing something wrong.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:52 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> Jesse, I don't care which route we go - NM is fine if we can persuade it to
>> work.
>>
>> All I want is a fixed address when on my home LAN - and I'll accept reserved
>> IP from my router's dhcp if that's easiest - and straight dhcp for the wifi,
>> since that will be used at various locations.
>>
>> Since trying to get the cabled connection working properly (and it's working
>> now, but not on my chosen IP address) I have lost the wifi altogether, so if
>> you can advise me how to start from scratch that would probably be best.
>
> Well, I'd re-edit your ifcfg-eth* files and set them all back to
> NM_CONTROLLED=yes.  Also, I'd question why you have an eth1 file, and

You're not questioning, you're implying - implying that the user has
done something wrong, when, in all likelihood. it's just THE WAY NM
HAS SET IT UP.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 23:41 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>>
>> > Then in NetworkManager you can right click the panel and edit
>> > connections.  There you should be able to define a configuration for
>> > System eth0 complete with static addressing.  This in theory should
>> > allow it to come up at boot time with this static address and be fine.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The static configuration gets lost each time.
>
> Yah that sounds like a bug.  I'll run through this scenario on rawhide
> tomorrow and verify that it's working as expected.

Did you? Does it? bz number?

I was wrong - this thread is closer to 100 messages than 82.
I've been involved in open source projects long enough not to expect
insiders to admit they're wrong, but I should think you would at least
be open minded.

jerry

-- 
There's plenty of youth in America - it's time we find the "fountain of smart".




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list