On 28 May 2010 21:41, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
>
> Very cool! Sounds like there is still much more integration needed -- the
> whole user environment should use such a namespace, and the global
> networkmanager can interact with the user namespaces --, but definately a
> great step in the right dir
Now I'm no expert on this particular area but I recall that there are now
several ways to break a system up into "containers" [1] which is often used
to do things like virtualisation. However, would it be possible
to utilize the network "namespace" component [2] in order to break off a
user's mobil
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,
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 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
2009/12/5 David Griffith
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> NM natively supports static IP addresses; so you can either configure
>> them via /etc/network/interfaces as you normally would, or you can use
>> nm-connection-editor along with the 'keyfile' plugin to set up a
>> system-wid
I'll pitch in here.
I'd argue that we shouldn't avoid giving this distinction of the "level" of
connectivity we have (local, internet, whatever) just because some apps
might use it in a broken or ill-conceived manner - if an app consumes the
information provided by network manager incorrectly, the
There was a patch submitted to the master branch around a month ago. See
here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/networkmanager-list@gnome.org/msg14215.html
I guess it will be in a distribution near you soon :)
Graham
2009/11/20 Panayiotis Mousouliotis
> I would like to start with Wireless disabled
Why not? Why bother having two different ways of doing something?
2009/11/4
> Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 16:54 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I notice that if I stop the NetworkManager service:
>>>/etc/init.d/NetworkManager stop
>>> that the interfaces started by
2009/10/26 Dan Williams
> I made that work at one point, so that if you did switch from WEP to WPA
> it would just ask and you send the new settings. But at some point I
> think that became obsolete, because NM won't even try to connect to your
> AP if the connection is WEP, but the AP is WPA; t
Is there a particular reason that you're manually configuring these two
routes? The 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 route is implied by the subnet mask
and so shouldn't be needed, and the 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 route is created by
setting the default gateway box on the ipv4 settings page to the address of
your
2009/9/12 Graham Lyon
> Ah, my bad. I didn't realise that this behaviour was caused by it being the
> first in the list. I second the fact that it would make sense for this
> behaviour to be as standard in network manager.
To clarify what I mean by "this behaviour" I m
a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Graham Lyon
> > wrote:
> > 2009/9/11 Luc Deschenaux
> >
> > At least I never need that NM switch to "auto eth0"
> > when the link is up
> >
2009/9/11 Luc Deschenaux
> At least I never need that NM switch to "auto eth0" when the link is up
> again, I need to continue with the configuration I did choose.
>
I believe that I'm correct in saying that if you select the "connect
automatically" checkbox on multiple wired network profiles th
Assuming that you're using Gnome (KDE isn't very different) you would right
click the network manager icon in the system tray (you need to add this to
your list of programs that gnome starts on session startup if it isn't
already there) and select "Edit Connections...". You should now be faced
with
What about some method of checking which domains the dns on the end of the
VPN is authorative for and only looking up that domain on that dns? Excuse
my ignorance of dns if this is not possible...
2009/8/10 Marc Luethi
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 11:51 +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > I'm not quite
2009/8/9 Hadmut Danisch
> Graham Lyon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then documentation should be fixed, not the method itself. DBus is the
> > best approach to do this, it uniffies IPC in unix, which is a *good*
> > thing.
>
> Network configuration is such an essenti
2009/8/8 Hadmut Danisch
> Dan Williams wrote:
> >> Many packets for debian/ubuntu are designed for the four phases of
> >> the ifup/down system of debian for pretty good reasons.
> >>
> >
> > It depends; reasons change, and so do implementations. Nothing is set
> > in stone.
> >
>
> Ah, I see.
2009/8/7 Dan Williams
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:30 +0100, Marc Herbert wrote:
> > Dan Williams a écrit :
> > >
> > > There are two reasons I've not yet added pre-up and pre-down. They
> are:
> > >
> > > 2) appropriateness
> >
> > Hmmm, the good old "just do not do this" answer... the best answe
2009/7/1 Dan Williams
> Firewall UI is a hard problem, and the current Linux stuff just doesn't
> make sense for most users, because they are fundamentally trying to
> provide a UI shell around a simple list of port-based allow/deny rules,
> or worse, a UI shell around every option that iptables
2009/6/24 Marc Herbert
> Graham Lyon a écrit :
> > 2009/6/24 Marc Herbert
> >
> >> Graham Lyon a écrit :
> >>> I'll agree that if your system doesn't have ports open by default then
> >>> you're fine, but if for instance your
2009/6/24 Marc Herbert
> Graham Lyon a écrit :
> > I'll agree that if your system doesn't have ports open by default then
> > you're fine, but if for instance your package manager pulls in mysql or
> > postfix or similar as a dependency for some package that
PM, Graham Lyon wrote:
> > Ah, but what if I wanted to sit in my local coffee shop doing some
> > development work on my website (apache running on my local machine) but
> > wanted to use their public wifi to access docs etc online. I want myself
> to
> > have access to
Ah, but what if I wanted to sit in my local coffee shop doing some
development work on my website (apache running on my local machine) but
wanted to use their public wifi to access docs etc online. I want myself to
have access to my apache server but I want to prevent others in the coffee
shop from
is no firewall on their
system because they have been indocterinated into the idea that they must
have one ;)
2009/6/22 Marc Herbert
> Hi Graham,
>
> Graham Lyon a écrit :
> > Firewalls, for the average end user, should "just work". A great many
> linux
> > distros
Hi,
I'm wondering what the plan of action is towards management of firewalls on
the desktop. Is this something that NetworkManager should do? I think so.
Firewalls, for the average end user, should "just work". A great many linux
distros don't come with a firewall configured by default and there i
25 matches
Mail list logo
