On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>
> Of course, as the tools continue to advance, some other selection may
> make sense in the future, but even then I think we should continue to debate
> the tools in terms of how the system is expected to be used, rather than
> what hardware i
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Tom H wrote:
>>>
>>> Could NM's "Depends" and "Recommends" be pared down for an X-less
>>> use-case? Thanks.
>>
>> "We'll burn that bridge when we
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>
> I guess this whole NM issue might fall under the tasksel issue, I
> prefer not to use it but a friend of mine does...you prefer NM I
> prefer to stay away from it, preference perhaps? But with preference
> comes the problem that NM relies
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Tom H wrote:
>> NM on Fedora can now handle bonding and bridging by reading
>> "/etc/sysconfig/netwok-scripts/ifcfg-*" files.
>>
>> I was curious about whether NM could do the same by reading
>> "
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom H's message of 2012-08-22 00:24:11 -0700:
>>
>> IMO, we'll end up sooner or later using NM on X-less boxes by default
>
> I do not share your opinion. While I'm not ifupdown's biggest fan, it
> will likely be the network confi
Dale Amon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > prefer to stay away from it, preference perhaps? But with preference
> > comes the problem that NM relies on wpasupplicant and a couple of
> > other wireless tools that we would absolutely never need on a server,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> prefer to stay away from it, preference perhaps? But with preference
> comes the problem that NM relies on wpasupplicant and a couple of
> other wireless tools that we would absolutely never need on a server,
> unless we are crazy or
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dale Amon wrote:
> I usually de-install it on servers. A server has the interfaces
> and static IP addresses I tell it has and it should never, ever
> even consider overriding those settings.
>
> NM is okay (usually) for portable luser devices, but not for
> the ra
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:56:40PM -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Tom H wrote:
> > IMO, we'll end up sooner or later using NM on X-less boxes by default
>
> It might be the case eventually, but we're not there yet.
I usually de-install it on servers. A s
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Tom H wrote:
> IMO, we'll end up sooner or later using NM on X-less boxes by default
It might be the case eventually, but we're not there yet.
> NM on Fedora can now handle bonding and bridging by reading
> "/etc/sysconfig/netwok-scripts/ifcfg-*" files.
>
> I was
Excerpts from Tom H's message of 2012-08-22 00:24:11 -0700:
> IMO, we'll end up sooner or later using NM on X-less boxes by default
>
I do not share your opinion. While I'm not ifupdown's biggest fan, it
will likely be the network configuration tool of choice on servers for
the forseeable future.
11 matches
Mail list logo
