On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:45:02AM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2014-05-01, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > Thanks! > > > Judging from both recent editions of Fedora and the free beta RH7, you > > don't HAVE to use NetworkManager. You will have to manually turn it off > > and turn network on, and judging by later versions of Fedora (though not at > > all deeply researched by me) you may need to use the > > system-config-network-tui tool rather than just editing > > /etc/sysocnfig/network/network-scripts/ifcfg-*. > > Can you recall what gave you this impression? It'd be frustrating to > me to have to keep my hands off of the config files directly. (If not, > I understand; if I really want to know that badly I should just check it > myself.) Two things. One, comments from an extremely knowledgeable person on the Fedora forums, has said that there are now various scripts buried in various places. The person has, time and time again, shown themself to be extremely knowledgeable. The second is from an install where I manually edited the files, and the network would not start. I've been manually editing for years, and I am almost positive that it was not a syntax error on my part. Each time, after the machine booted, I could manually run ifconfig or ip, or dhclient and it would then come up. Finally, I used system-config-network-tui and it came up As I said, not a deep investigation--for example, I didn't do a diff of ifconfig-eth0 before and after using system-config-network-tui. On most other installs of F20 prior to that, I, due to the aforementioned posting on Fedora forums, just used system-config-network-tui without trying manual configuration--hence, not deeply tested. > > > Unfortunately, (and freely admitting much of this may be old person's get > > of my lawn attitude), it does seem that the Fedora developers are working > > for the single user laptop, and have little concept of system > > administration--or, to be fair, have little interest in things for the > > system administrator, and unfortunately, RedHat just throws these things > > into their next enterprise version without checking. > > > Does RH really "just throw these things in"? It seems like they would > annoy many of their more tech-savvy customers with moves like this one > (if it were to happen). Well, the ones I can think of off the top of my head are allowing any user to update a signed rpm without authorization. The other one is showing all user names at login screen. Those are two household laptop or desktop features that make sense for a single user (or in a household) but not in business--to the point that not even Windows does it with their business class systems. Other things, such as NM, are debatable. To me, and apparently many others, they are a home user or workstation at best, feature that shouldn't be on a server. I suspect many people feel the same about systemd as well. It makes things boot faster, but also seems more likely to choke if something doesn't come up. A recent job change has put me more in the BSD world than Linux these days, so I haven't been following recent developments as closely as I used to do. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6