I'll pitch in here. I'd argue that we shouldn't avoid giving this distinction of the "level" of connectivity we have (local, internet, whatever) just because some apps might use it in a broken or ill-conceived manner - if an app consumes the information provided by network manager incorrectly, then the app is broken and not network manager! For instance, I think firefox should attempt to connect to a server so long as any sort of network connection is present. Note that if a "local only" connection is present, then a connection to what we think of as a public address may still be possible because that public address may actually be hosted on the LAN and the internet connection for the entire LAN may be faulty. So, for instance, I should still be able to connect to my company's internet site if it is hosted on my company's LAN but my company's internet connection is down. I hope that wasn't too confusing. But anyway, that's an argument to be had on the firefox development mailing lists ;)
2009/12/4 Simon Geard <[email protected]> > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:22 +0000, Martin Owens wrote: > > That's a completely different use case. What you want to tell client > > programs needs to be different to what your telling users when your > > unsure about what you've got. > > True, it's not quite the same, since existing implementations are > triggered by the presence of any NM-managed network, rather than whether > that network can see the rest of the world. Even so, if the information > is there, people will likely use it for such purposes... > > Simon. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
