For instance this most obvious false positive: you are connected but not to the internet. Then why would pidgin try to reach MSN servers in this case?
post from two days ago. http://www.nabble.com/-WISH--Make-NM-autodetect-if-it-can-reach-the-internet-td23286488.html Currently, its seems to be that if Network Manager does not handle the default route, you probably want to disable it and its back to scripts and command line. The design of NM seems to heavily rely on this default route caveat. It is kinda like using NM you become an indentured servant. Ease of use often comes at a compromise on flexibility. I guess the real question would be, is this default route caveat a necessity? -- John . On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Marc Herbert <[email protected]>wrote: > David Sundqvist a écrit : > > > Perhaps. Taking a quick look at the NM project webpage, it's not > > really that farfetched: "Using the awesome power and flexibility of > > dbus and hal, NetworkManager provides facilities for other > > applications like browsers, email clients, or system services to be > > aware of the network's state and adjust their operation accordingly." > > > > That certainly could sound fairly authoritative to a presumptive > > software developer, so I can understand why they make that assumption. > > WOW! I did not realize NM was that ambitious, thanks for enlightening me. > > > > 2) Disabuse application developers of the notion that NetworkManager > > has an accurate status. The first step of which would be to change the > > project page a bit to say "be aware of NM's perhaps not entirely > > accurate idea of the network's state" > > You can indeed easily imagine tons of "accidental" network > configurations where the idea might be "not entirely accurate"; either > false positive (not actually connected) or false negative. > > For instance this most obvious false positive: you are connected but not > to the internet. Then why would pidgin try to reach MSN servers in this > case? > > - Granted false positives are not that bad. After all it is just back to > the old TCP time-outs days people were used to and seldom complaining > about. > > - On the other false negatives are much much more annoying, like seen > here: http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+starts+offline (500,000 > hits, thks David) > > So maybe... > > 3) NM could simply lean towards the optimistic side and report > connectivity as soon as in doubt. Maybe NM should trigger off-line modes > ONLY when it is 200% sure that it OWNS EVERY single interface in the > system and is positively sure they are ALL absolutely out of order. > > So instead of (too) ambitiously trying to be definitive and reporting > network "OFF" versus "ON", NM would rather be cautious + optimistic and > report network "really OFF" versus "probably ON". That would fix these > 500,000 google hits without involving the application writers at all. > > > Comments? > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkManager-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list >
_______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
