NetworkManager: I want to believe, but... [was Re: F9 potential service network bug?]

[Zing]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:25:01 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:04 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> If you're using a single ethernet adapter, statically configured,
>> without a desktop, and only running say httpd and samba, then no, you
>> probably don't want to use NM.  You certainly _could_ if you wanted to.
> 
> No, we probably *do* want people using NetworkManager here because
> maintaining two entirely orthogonal network stacks is somewhat insane
> and makes the rest of the system harder to manage.

IMO, the options that server admins want (or at least I want) is what dan 
essentially says: to run without a daemon "managing" my network 
interface... it's just pure bloatiness and feel goodiness from this 
perspective.  I don't want _another_ thing to have to diagnose when things 
go red alert on a bare bones server.  So, we have that ability now.  I'm 
happy. It sounds like this will always be the case, and if so, great.