On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Konstantin Olchanski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:44:42PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: >> On Monday, April 09, 2012 12:31:39 PM Konstantin Olchanski wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> ... and the current NetworkManager doesn't handle many production server >>>> networking tasks, >>>> so upstream left the existing mechanism in place so choice is available. >>>> >>> >>> No, they have not. In SL6, they have removed the old graphical >>> system-config-network tool, >>> so either use nm-connection-editor or vi. >> >> The 'existing mechanism' I refer to is the 'network' service and the older >> ifcfg-ethX files. The assumption made in EL6 is that if you use a GUI you >> will use NetworkManager. > > That's right. Nm manager gui or vi. Our way or the highway. So you arrive to > a remote location > to fix broken network config and find that the mouse walked away, too, > welcome to vi. As I say, > people who come up with this stuff do not think beyound "it works on my > laptop".
It's RH's right as a distribution to decide to make us choose between vi and nm-connection-editor, in the same way that it decided to drop sysvinit for upstart in v6 and will almost certainly drop upstart for systemd in v7. I've never used any of the system-config-* tools and I vaguely (vaguely!) remember a thread where a developer proposed to deprecate some or all of them.
