[CentOS] Disappearing Network Manager config scripts

[m.roth at 5-cent.us]

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 02:42 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> This may be fine for users that don't know what they are doing or
>> don't have a stable networking environment, but I have found for me it
>> causes nothing but heartache.
<snip>
> My experience?  There is no such thing as a 100% stable networking
> environment.  Systems like Tandem's NonStop take that a step further,
> and realize that there's no such thing as a 100% stable CPU, either.

Define "stable". please. I have servers (and I really, REALLY want to
reboot them, but they're home directory or project servers, and so it's
really hard to get to do that, since people have jobs that run for days or
weeks, that have run flawlessly for > 300 days, with nothing vaguely
significant problems.
>
> This whole discussion reminds me of the SELinux discussions, and the
> oft-quoted advice to just disable it, it just gets in the way of The Way
> I'm Used To Doing Things (TM).

That's a complete misrepresentation of the other side of *that* argument.
>
>> The first thing I do is disable it. The sad part is that it makes us
>> not understand what is really happening with our systems and when
>> something doesn't work we have no idea where to look.
>
> NetworkManager is well-documented.  You just have to read the docs and
> be willing to try something new.  It also logs to /var/log/messages in

WHY? I'm not a huge fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but fixing
something that, 90% of the time, is no big deal to configure and run, with
layers of complexity that have created both new issues, and broken things
that are set up in a given way for a reason, does not endear it to me.
<snip>
>> I have been using UNIX/BSD/Linux since the mid eighties and hate where
>> things appear to be going - looking more and more like Windows. my $.02
>
Yup. Agreed ('91 for me, though I did try Coherent in the late 80's....).

> Looking like Windows is not a capital crime.  (No, I am not a Windows
> freak; I've used *nix of various types probably as long as you have, and
> I haven't used any Windows as my primary desktop of choice since Windows
> 95 was a pup, and have never used a Windows Server as my primary server
> of choice.)

*Looking* like it, in terms of GUI, isn't a killer (fvwm2, anyone?)...
unless you're talking Lose 8, er, Win8. *Configuring* *Nix that way *is* a
Bad Thing.
>
> NetworkManager's goal is extremely simple, and is in the README. It's
> simply: "NetworkManager attempts to keep an active network connection
> available at all times."  Networks are unreliable. Period.  That's why

I boggle at this. I've not had unreliable networks, not any place I've
worked, nor where I lived, and that goes back to dial-up in the far exurbs
of Austin, TX.
<snip>
> Back in the late 1800's people who had used tillers to steer their
> horseless carriages probably though the same thing about this new fancy
> gizmo called a steering wheel.  And automatic transmissions? Heresy!

That *does* come off as snide and supercilious, esp. in this specific
forum, with the backgrounds of most of us.
<snip>
> but things move on as requirements change.  (At least I can still have
> my vi!  I HAVE used vi since the 80's, and it is still the same quirky
> beast it always was, even in Xenix V7 on the T6K.).

Just you wait: maybe we should all join some fedora list where we can
vote, before they try to force us all to ... EMACS!
(alt.religion.editors....)
>
> Older does not mean better, and many times newer things have to be tried
> out first to see if they are, or aren't, better.  Systemd is one of
> these things, and it will be interesting to see how that all plays out
> over the next few years.

Again, newer does not mean better, either. And if you're going to go on
about the heresy of automatic transmissions, I'll throw back in your face
that when I was young, the fabric of dungarees (blue jeans, er, "jeans" to
you) had a weight, I'd guess, about 14 or 16; these days, if you're
really, really lucky, they might be 9, which is why they wear out so soon.
And as for the quality of cell phones (oh, of course that's worn out, it's
*soooo* old, it must be last year's model...)

      mark