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,
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 adv
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* s
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 t
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, e
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 config
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
Zitat von Stanislav Maslovski :
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 ge
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 manuall
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 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
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 wa
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Heiko Schlittermann
wrote:
> Stanislav Maslovski (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'
Stanislav Maslovski (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 decisions and wonder, ho
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200, Josselin Mouette 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 happening on thei
On 06 Apr 09:10, Andrew O. Shadoura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200
> Josselin Mouette 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 ifu
Hello,
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:29:05 +0200
Josselin Mouette 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 trivial setup
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 fo
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 ta
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
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:59:43PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams 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 ju
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams 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 DBus or Python - it
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, 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
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 00:00:01 -0700
Steve Langasek 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 has no
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> Ple
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> softw
>>> 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
>>> wou
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
> > i
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 ifupdown-
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 wrote
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 (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 poin
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 wa
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:11 AM, martin f krafft 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 enabled).
Anyways, I do
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 part
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.
>
> T
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 enti
* Stefano Zacchiroli [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 own distro.
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 dis
also sprach Josselin Mouette [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 extensible, a
41 matches
Mail list logo
