Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com) said: > Some of us would prefer to avoid being plagued by NM. It > (wpa_supplicant) works just fine, independent of NM and I've just got it > hooked in the bottom of the ifup scripts as they describe doing on the > project site. So far, I haven't found a problem that NM solves for me > and a few that it creates for me. NM and wpa_supplicant should each be > optional and orthogonal to each other.
That's implying that there should always be two completely disparate and conflicting sources of network configuration (NM and ifcfg-X); I really don't think that's practical long-term. Bill
