On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:11:38PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Installing NM by default will break systems which where running the last
12 years without flaws.
No, it will not. It will not impact *running* systems at all. It will only
impact newly installed systems.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
This is Exacly what I mean with NM. I do not wan to be bothered with
reading some hours documentations on how to tweek NM to work with my
four 10GE NICs.
And you wouldn't be - because, once again - you are not forced to
Hello Jon Dowland,
Am 2011-04-11 10:37:54, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:11:38PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Installing NM by default will break systems which where running the last
12 years without flaws.
No, it will not. It will not impact *running*
Hello Jon Dowland,
Am 2011-04-11 12:02:09, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
And you wouldn't be - because, once again - you are not forced to use whatever
the default solution is, you have the freedom to switch to another, just like
people who currently *do* use network-manager have taken
Le lundi 11 avril 2011 à 13:18 +0200, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
I think, DI has to support a Fast-Install-Option for Desktop and Server
where the first one installs NM by default and the second one IFUPDOWND.
This is what is already done for squeeze.
If OTOH we get d-i to run NM natively,
Zitat von Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:51:08PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Mittwoch 06 April 2011, 19:05:11 schrieb Stanislav Maslovski:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Then you can stack all soft of
Hello Philip Hands,
Am 2011-04-06 10:13:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
I think this is the vital difference -- those that prefer ifupdown do so
because they prefer to be in tight control of what is happening on their
systems, whereas those that prefer NM don't want to be bothered about
Hello Hendrik Sattler,
Am 2011-04-07 12:56:33, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
I am also not totally happy about network-manager but I still use it
as it gives me a working wireless network on my laptop without
having to spend hours reading endless documentation and writing
multiple
Hello,
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Your limited knowledge is like jam. The less you have, the more you
spread it.
Well, you have just confirmed this statement.
What you actually like about ifupdown is that it cannot do anything
but extremely
On 06 Apr 09:10, Andrew O. Shadoura wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Your limited knowledge is like jam. The less you have, the more you
spread it.
Well, you have just confirmed this statement.
What you actually like about
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
... and since it’s not event-based you have to hard-code the way your
network is set up.
I think this is the vital difference -- those that prefer ifupdown do so
because they prefer to be in tight control of what is
Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com (Sun Apr 3 12:37:26 2011):
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:11:03AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
But if network-manager would become default and ifupdown an optional
replacement, I would question Debian's capacity to make technically
excellent
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Heiko Schlittermann h...@schlittermann.de
wrote:
Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com (Sun Apr 3 12:37:26
2011):
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:11:03AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
But if network-manager would become default and ifupdown an
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 avril 2011 à 02:08 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit :
Well, that is not the question of how many, that is the question of
can you do a given task or not with a given tool. NM is limited in all
possible ways I
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Then you can stack all soft of stuff on top of it, and get them to
work manually for your specific setup, and since it’s not event-based
you have to
Am Mittwoch 06 April 2011, 19:05:11 schrieb Stanislav Maslovski:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Then you can stack all soft of stuff on top of it, and get them to
work manually for your specific setup, and since it’s not event-based
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:51:08PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Mittwoch 06 April 2011, 19:05:11 schrieb Stanislav Maslovski:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Then you can stack all soft of stuff on top of it, and get them to
work manually for your
Le mardi 05 avril 2011 à 02:08 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit :
Well, that is not the question of how many, that is the question of
can you do a given task or not with a given tool. NM is limited in all
possible ways I can imagine, and also buggy. On the contrary, with
ifupdown, one for
On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
RH Hi,
RH On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
but shouldn't replace it.
RH Please refrain from calling people stupid users just because they use a
RH software that
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
RH Hi,
RH On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
but shouldn't replace it.
RH Please refrain
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 00:00:01 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
There was a way User can do anything, the way was replaced by the way
User can do something in list. Obviously that this action has been
done for stupid users.
Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:00:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
RH Hi,
RH On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:11:15AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
Why on earth would I do that? It does not match my needs at all. For
instance, this laptop sometimes connects to a couple of remote LANs
through VPNs, so that I have to set up routing in a not completely
trivial manner.
I
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs
to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One
tool does not suit all here. It's not just about daemon vs GUI frontend
or whether to use
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:59:43PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs
to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One
tool does not suit all
Hello Stanislav Maslovski,
Am 2011-04-04 01:11:15, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:20PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote:
May I suggest that you install a squeeze system with the desktop task,
with a simple DHCP network configuration?
Why on earth would I do that?
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:17:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Stanislav Maslovski,
Am 2011-04-04 01:11:15, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:20PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote:
May I suggest that you install a squeeze system with the desktop task,
also sprach Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2011.04.02.2229 +0200]:
I wonder what amount of features we are missing for network-manager to
do the job; instead of rewriting a daemon from scratch, we might as well
use one that was designed mostly for the same purpose. It’s
event-driven, it’s
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:11:03AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
But if network-manager would become default and ifupdown an optional
replacement, I would question Debian's capacity to make technically
excellent decisions and wonder, how much we have been dragged along
by user-friendly distros
* Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org [110403 12:57]:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:37:26PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
If that happens I will seriously think about moving to another distro
(I have been using Debian since around 1999). Or maybe to a *BSD.
You're entitled to choose your
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 12:56:40PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:37:26PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
If that happens I will seriously think about moving to another distro
(I have been using Debian since around 1999). Or maybe to a *BSD.
You're entitled
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:09:09PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 01:07:12PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Debian is not about market-share, so losing users is no thread. It is
only an information for us that we no longer helpful to some of our
users.
The
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:42:11PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
I understand that you are in a position that forces you to think about
public relations and such, but if I were a DD I would be more happy if
DPL was a bit more focused on real problems.
Non sequitur: the fact that I'm
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:11 AM, martin f krafft madd...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
last I checked, for instance, it was not possible to hook up two
network cards with DHCP.
[...]
Hmmm I do have two network cards and they both get IP addresses with
DHCP as I would expect (when they both are
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 03:50:36PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:42:11PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
I understand that you are in a position that forces you to think about
public relations and such, but if I were a DD I would be more happy if
DPL was a
Le dimanche 03 avril 2011 à 21:32 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit :
Analogously, when I see such great technical suggestions as
replacing ifupdown on default installs with network-manager, I can't
help thinking (and sometimes commenting) that if this trend continues,
then at some point in
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:20PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 03 avril 2011 à 21:32 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit :
Analogously, when I see such great technical suggestions as
replacing ifupdown on default installs with network-manager, I can't
help thinking (and
Hello,
This reply went to debian-russian@ due to a mistake. Next doing a
bounce to d-d was another mistake, so if you receive this message
twice, I am sorry for that!
Still I feel that I cannot leave it unanswered, so here it goes.
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:26:20PM +0530, Josselin Mouette
On ma, 2011-04-04 at 00:18 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
If you read my mails without a prejudice you will notice it.
I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism
you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For
example:
If you mean the
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:28:42PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism
you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For
example:
If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that
it is
If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that
it is really disastrous (I would agree that the network-manager
approach is really disastrous, however) as at least in my cases (which
are not so trivial) ifupdown works okay (and if not then at least I
would know ways how
41 matches
Mail list logo
