On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Tom H's message of 2012-08-22 00:24:11 -0700: >> >> IMO, we'll end up sooner or later using NM on X-less boxes by default > > I do not share your opinion. While I'm not ifupdown's biggest fan, it > will likely be the network configuration tool of choice on servers for > the forseeable future. NM is specifically targetted at the more flexible > networking requirements of laptops and mobile systems. It does not, > however, take into account all of the myriad use cases for servers that > ifupdown handles.
Given the dislike/hate for that's often expressed on debian-devel, Ubuntu'll have ifupdown and not have to worry about developing a home-grown alternative to NM. As an end-user I find the idea that every distribution has its own networking configuration stack frustrating. In my day job, I work with RHEL and Solaris. But I moonlight and have to deal with Arch, Debian, Gentoo, Scientific (and Fedora), and Ubuntu. Arch and Gentoo are only twice and once respectively - which makes things even worse. Now that NM can handle bonds, bridges, and vlans, my hope's that installing it on a X-less server'll be easy. Quite frankly, from an efficiency perspective for Linux as a whole, it'd make more sense for more developers to improve NM rather than work an alternatives. But open source doesn't work this way. Regarding the "flexible networking requirements", people make the same argument for not switching to upstart or systemd.. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
