Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes: > > > Since it was completely redesigned, almost from scratch, this doesn’t > > apply for 0.8. Its system daemon is able to manage connections without > > anyone logged on, and with a number of features that makes ifupdown look > > like a baby toy. > > So Network-Manager has finally gained basic features like the ability to > set a lower than default MTU?
AFAICT n-m had support for setting a lower MTU since 2008. And with basic network features do you mean things like - custom routes per interface - multiple ip adresses per interface - WLAN configuration - 802.11x - overriding default nameservers per connection - overriding default search domain per connection - netmasks in CIDR notation and all of that - in a central place with a consistent interface - without reliance on external commands (such as the ip command or shell scripts) for basic stuff - without crude hacks (e.g. defining additional interfaces just to bring up another ip) Do you? > How about bridging? VLANs? Unnumbered interfaces? DHCPv6-PD? > Disabling IPv6 SLAAC on a specific interface? Multiple uplinks? > Multiple routing tables? Creating tap interfaces connected to virtual > swiches? Different types of tunnels? Sharing an ethernet interface > between PPPoE and IP? I guess n-m fails in those scenarios. At least for bridging I know it. Now the question is, weither this is relevant for *default* installs or not. Now the above stated features are not features used by every Debian user. They are specific for certain use-cases. They can still be realised. Either with - writing an appropriate NM plugin - writing a shell script and dropping it in the network-manager dispatcher directory (basically similar ifupdowns if*.d directories) - installing and using ifupdown together with network-manager or alone- Even if n-m would be the default on new installations. Note, that I'm not advocating for or against n-m as the default in Debian. I don't even have a strong opinion about this (as long as I'm still able to install ifupdown, if my use-case is not handled by n-m). But it would help, if people would actually focus on the problem to be solved instead of the whole worlds problems. What I'd personally like is a well-integrated comprehensive network configuration solution with a sane design. Able to manage systemwide and relocating connections. Simple and complex connections. With a configuration file backend *and* a GUI. Maybe with a cli tool as well. I guess thats what most people want, even if their *need* is a different one. > The list of features *not* supported by Network Manager is so long that Most ifupdown features are not native. Its basically a framework which allows *other* tools to provide all the features you named. > I've always believed that peoply chose NM for simplicity. And I can > understand that. It's simple because it doesn't support anything > "complex", including common VPN setups. ifupdown does not support any VPN setup at all. how does that fit in your argumentation? Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110415130447.GA14482@debian