Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
Graham Lyon a écrit : The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically coming back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A daemon was necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done before. The design, therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are inevitable. This does not mean, however, the the init scripts were better - they just had 15 years or so to mature ;) I fully second that. On the one hand I hate it when NM is breaking good old features (sometimes gratuitously). On the other hand the energy with which NM tries to automagically keep you on-line at all times is truly impressive and something that was very badly missing from the Linux desktop. I will keep constantly looking for the single and ideal tool that combines the best of the old and new worlds. Even if it does not end up being NM, at least it showed some skill. Cheers, Marc ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
Dan Williams a écrit : It's complicated. Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in the background actively managing the network. So there was nothing to restart. Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really express terminate but don't take stuff down. Using sigaction() you can give the semantic of your choice to any signal. Correct if I am wrong but a lot of daemons already do that to implement things like /etc/init.d/foo reload. We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and keep -TERM as taking interfaces down. Unix signals are infinitely inferior to D-BUS. Yet they look like the right tool for this simple job, don't they? Implemented one way or the other, this new quit feature would be nice. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:51 +, Marc Herbert wrote: Dan Williams a écrit : It's complicated. Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in the background actively managing the network. So there was nothing to restart. Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really express terminate but don't take stuff down. Using sigaction() you can give the semantic of your choice to any signal. Correct if I am wrong but a lot of daemons already do that to implement things like /etc/init.d/foo reload. Yeah, that's also a good point. HUP and USR1 are already reserved (in mind at least, not implemented) so maybe USR2 or something. Dan We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and keep -TERM as taking interfaces down. Unix signals are infinitely inferior to D-BUS. Yet they look like the right tool for this simple job, don't they? Implemented one way or the other, this new quit feature would be nice. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system connection. It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type boxes. I still don't get why people would want to use NetworkManager on servers anyway. But that's another topic (however, if someone feels like explaining, I'll not stop her ;)). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn one tool. Also, why not? ;) On 27 February 2010 08:30, Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de wrote: That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system connection. It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type boxes. I still don't get why people would want to use NetworkManager on servers anyway. But that's another topic (however, if someone feels like explaining, I'll not stop her ;)). ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically coming back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A daemon was necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done before. The design, therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are inevitable. This does not mean, however, the the init scripts were better - they just had 15 years or so to mature ;) On 27 February 2010 14:47, Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de wrote: For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn one tool. Also, why not? ;) This, dear fellow user, I will not discuss publicly, as I would probably be banned from the list ;). In short: NetworkManager is all in all a single pain in the a . Both on Desktops *and* on servers. So why not stick to traditional runlevel control when t is known to work better? -nik ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
On 02/27/2010 11:05 AM, Graham Lyon wrote: The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically coming back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A daemon was necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done before. The design, therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are inevitable. This does not mean, however, the the init scripts were better - they just had 15 years or so to mature ;) On 27 February 2010 14:47, Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de mailto:n...@naturalnet.de wrote: For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn one tool. Also, why not? ;) This, dear fellow user, I will not discuss publicly, as I would probably be banned from the list ;). In short: NetworkManager is all in all a single pain in the a . Both on Desktops *and* on servers. So why not stick to traditional runlevel control when t is known to work better? If you move around and connect to multiple AP's, traditional runlevel control is a PITA. With NM, you can create the new connection with the GUI. If it already exists, a single click brings it up. For systems with only wired connections, I don't use it, but if it has wireless, it is very useful. Larry ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
I am afraid that this new half stop is going to confuse people. In most systems /etc/init.d/NetworkManager is replacing /etc/init.d/network[ing]. The latter, older one used to connect the system on start and disconnect it on stop. Simple. Now the new one will disconnect the system... sometimes. Sometimes not. And it might even leave a running process behind. This will surprise people. If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly what you describe NM to be doing ;). Or am I misunderstanding something? -nik ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
Dominik George a écrit : If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly what you describe NM to be doing ;). Or am I misunderstanding something? In 0.7.1, yes. But according to Dan, not any more in 0.8.X. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: /etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit ?
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:57 +, Marc Herbert wrote: Dominik George a écrit : If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly what you describe NM to be doing ;). Or am I misunderstanding something? In 0.7.1, yes. But according to Dan, not any more in 0.8.X. That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system connection. It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type boxes. It's complicated. Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in the background actively managing the network. So there was nothing to restart. Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really express terminate but don't take stuff down. We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and keep -TERM as taking interfaces down. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
