On 09/09/2012 07:14 AM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
As someone who recently needed some pretty niche functionality if you
ask me. I was amazed at the amount of help and open-mindedness of Dan.
He helped me learn where stuff was in the tree, and gave me pseudo
code. Walked me through some parts a
On 09/07/2012 03:34 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
And here comes the bigger question what is keeping all you networking
guys from simply combine all that effort and coming up with one single
network application that everybody can use happily from embedded to
servers to desktop?
There's room to work
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 17:04:31 -0500,
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 16:38:27 -0500,
Dan Williams wrote:
>'man NetworkManager' is a good place to start here, which leads you to
>NetworkManager.conf, which leads you t
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:44 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > 'man NetworkManager' is a good place to start here, which leads you to
> > NetworkManager.conf, which leads you to:
> >
> > dns=dnsmasq
> >
> > which with 0.9.6 and any options you put into custom configuratio
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 16:38:27 -0500,
>Dan Williams wrote:
> >'man NetworkManager' is a good place to start here, which leads you to
> >NetworkManager.conf, which leads you to:
> >
> >dns=dnsmasq
>
> I knew about that, but I don't
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 16:38:27 -0500,
Dan Williams wrote:
'man NetworkManager' is a good place to start here, which leads you to
NetworkManager.conf, which leads you to:
dns=dnsmasq
I knew about that, but I don't use dnsmasq, I use dnscache.
which with 0.9.6 and any options you put into
Dan Williams wrote:
> 'man NetworkManager' is a good place to start here, which leads you to
> NetworkManager.conf, which leads you to:
>
> dns=dnsmasq
>
> which with 0.9.6 and any options you put into custom configuration
> in /etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d, should do exactly what you want. The
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 14:49 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 13:23:37 -0500,
>Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> >That's NM's heritage, but that's certainly not its focus. We're
> >actually focusing a *lot* more on enterprise use-cases these days,
> >including lots of knobs that
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 21:02 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 07:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I'm not sure the right place for this sort of
> > thing is in the init system.
>
> Well I happen to be sure that the init systemd regardless of which
> flavor of the month it is sho
On 09/07/2012 07:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
I'm not sure the right place for this sort of
thing is in the init system.
Well I happen to be sure that the init systemd regardless of which
flavor of the month it is should handle this because it is responsible
to signal the service(s) and or orde
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 13:23:37 -0500,
Dan Williams wrote:
That's NM's heritage, but that's certainly not its focus. We're
actually focusing a *lot* more on enterprise use-cases these days,
including lots of knobs that admins like to turn.
Is there a good source of documentation for these
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 09:20 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> On Thursday 30 August 2012 08:55:02 Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > The systemd people do have some ideas they've already been kicking around
> > > for this already... have you seen it?
> >
> > To be clear, I'm not really convinced yet that this
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 15:17 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 01:58 PM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > Your feedback is very much welcome!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olaf
>
> Why Did You Do This?!
>
> Do we really need yet another network management thing?
> ===
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:48 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if one way to deal with the network configuration issue is to
> try and help different configuration systems work with each other,
> rather than to try and create one system which does everything. Last
> time I looked i
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 07:44 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> On Thursday 30 August 2012 04:16:23 Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > *** Network Manager is just another daemon created for a task
> > > which historically often did not need any daemons. It's almost as if
> > > the new generation of
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 09:20 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 19:48:29 Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Olaf, I'm very interested to learn more about wicked. Can you perhaps
> > itemize the set of features available to wicked (current as well as
> > in-development)
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 13:23 +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 08/30/2012 08:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
> >> Olaf Kirch (o...@suse.de) said:
> >>> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 11:58 A
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 09:20 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> On Friday 31 August 2012 02:47:38 Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > I'm not saying you *can't* do it, but it's also not something to do
> > lightly.
>
> Totally agreed. But what are really the points of maximum stickiness?
> Obviously, configuration
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 09:44 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Hi Miloslav,
>
> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 18:42:44 Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Considering that it's not reasonable to expect that the replacement
> > will cover 100% of the previous functionality, the "old" and "new"
> > projects will have t
Hi Miloslav,
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 18:42:44 Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Considering that it's not reasonable to expect that the replacement
> will cover 100% of the previous functionality, the "old" and "new"
> projects will have to live side by side again for some time. So a
> switch to a dif
On Friday 31 August 2012 02:47:38 Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I'm not saying you *can't* do it, but it's also not something to do
> lightly.
Totally agreed. But what are really the points of maximum stickiness?
Obviously, configuration files and command line interfaces.
So, for a new network manage
On Thursday 30 August 2012 08:55:02 Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > The systemd people do have some ideas they've already been kicking around
> > for this already... have you seen it?
>
> To be clear, I'm not really convinced yet that this is something we need...
> there is a lot of legacy admin overhe
Hi Stephen,
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 19:48:29 Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Olaf, I'm very interested to learn more about wicked. Can you perhaps
> itemize the set of features available to wicked (current as well as
> in-development) that aren't available (or maybe "accessible) in Network
> Manag
Olaf Kirch suse.de> writes:
> I would like to revive a proposal that I have made a while ago, regarding
> a framework for managing network interfaces. I called it wicked at that time,
> and it's still called that way, but because of potential confusion with WICD
> I'll probably change the name soo
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> I dont need convincing integrating network handling into
> systemd/Core OS only makes sense to me diversity in this area
> however does not and never has...
>
> Of what legacy admin overhead are you referring to that would/might
> come by that?
On 08/30/2012 06:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
Olaf Kirch (o...@suse.de) said:
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
Your feedback is very much welcome!
The network management/sol
On 2012-08-29 22:43, Olaf Kirch wrote:
Hi Adam,
On Thursday 30 August 2012 04:16:23 Adam Williamson wrote:
> *** Network Manager is just another daemon created for a task
> which historically often did not need any daemons. It's almost as
if
> the new generation of Unix hackers wants to redo
On 08/30/2012 08:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
>> Olaf Kirch (o...@suse.de) said:
>>> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Your feedback is very much welcome!
T
Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
> Olaf Kirch (o...@suse.de) said:
> > On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> > > On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > > > Your feedback is very much welcome!
> > >
> > > The network management/solution of the future
Olaf Kirch (o...@suse.de) said:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> > On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > > Your feedback is very much welcome!
> >
> > The network management/solution of the future most likely ( at least
> > will need to ) be something
Hi Adam,
On Thursday 30 August 2012 04:16:23 Adam Williamson wrote:
> > *** Network Manager is just another daemon created for a task
> > which historically often did not need any daemons. It's almost as if
> > the new generation of Unix hackers wants to redo everything -
> > in x10 or x100 times
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 21:56:45 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > Your feedback is very much welcome!
>
> The network management/solution of the future most likely ( at least
> will need to ) be something that is integrated into ( or with )
> system
On 2012-08-29 6:17, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We've got Network Manager, which is also doing it's job nicely and
won't
give you any headaches if you prevent it from stepping on anybody
else's
toes. Or try to make it manage a thousand devices, like on System z.
*** Network Manager is just another
On 08/29/2012 11:58 AM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
Your feedback is very much welcome!
The network management/solution of the future most likely ( at least
will need to ) be something that is integrated into ( or with )
systemd/Core OS
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 13:58 +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to revive a proposal that I have made a while ago, regarding
> a framework for managing network interfaces. I called it wicked at that time,
> and it's still called that way, but because of potential confusion with WIC
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> While I my original motivation in working on this is from a SUSE perspective,
> I believe other Linux distributions can benefit from this as well, and I'd
> be happy to work on this cross-distribution.
>
> Your feedback is very much welco
Hi,
I wonder if one way to deal with the network configuration issue is to
try and help different configuration systems work with each other,
rather than to try and create one system which does everything. Last
time I looked into this there were various things which could be done to
allow peaceful
On 08/29/2012 03:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 01:58 PM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Why Did You Do This?!
>
> Do we really need yet another network management thing?
> ===
...
> We've got Network Manager, which is also doin
On 08/29/2012 01:58 PM, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Your feedback is very much welcome!
>
> Regards,
> Olaf
Why Did You Do This?!
Do we really need yet another network management thing?
===
No, not really. We already have the good old
Hi all,
I would like to revive a proposal that I have made a while ago, regarding
a framework for managing network interfaces. I called it wicked at that time,
and it's still called that way, but because of potential confusion with WICD
I'll probably change the name soonishly.
This project has b
40 matches
Mail list logo
