On 04/30/2014 12:40 PM, Zube wrote: > I dunno. "Heresy!" "reality check, really." Sure seems to be the case > to me. You certainly aren't praising people who don't embrace the > change you do. I'll drop it and let others decide. 'Not embracing' and 'being actively antagonistic to any change' are too different things. The Luddite is antagonistic to any change; one who is just cautious is careful what one embraces. The tiller versus steering wheel analogy was a bit of hyperbole, and was meant to be. The reality check is that things are moving on, and if one wants one's skills to stay current one must learn those skills, even if one doesn't embrace the changes that require those new skills. That's the middle ground; not actively for or against, just staying up to date on the state of the art. And I'm neither rabidly for NM, nor am I rabidly against NM, but since it's there I'm going to take the time to learn why it's there and see if I can use it in those cases where it makes sense to use it, just like any other technology I'm considering. > Sure. Given that I have no need of NM, what part is broken that NM > fixes for me? Are you sure you will never have need for NM? > Or do the "some use cases" not apply to anyone who uses CentOS on > static IP desktops? Totally static desktops, no.