network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 23:29 -0400, William Case wrote:
> Hi Patrick;
> 
> As I said I am now satisfied that a conflict between some entity called
> 'network' or NM is the cause of my problems.  So some of this discussion
> is a bit moot.
> 
> On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote:
> > > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely?  I understand that
> > > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is
> > > sticking it in the list of services.  With NetworkManager running,
> > > 'network' is not a service I need.  So why confuse the issue?
> > 
> > Bill, if your question is "why do I get a network status report when I
> > invoke 'service network status'?" the answer is that the status is
> > simply a report on the state of the various interfaces. It has nothing
> > whatever to do with you using system-config-network.
> > 
> It seems that the word 'network' is being used in two different
> senses.  

At least two, correct.

> If I look at system-config-services I see what looks like an entity
> (program, application or process) that can be enabled, disabled,
> started, stopped or restarted as can its alternate NetworkManager.  I
> supposed that that entity (network) was what I was looking at with the
> command service network status.

To me "entity" implies a single thing, which it clearly isn't. The
*network service* is a set of related "entities", and if you look at
system-config-network this is fairly explicit.

> But it seems with the service network status command the word network is
> simply a generalized reference to any network.  So be it, but it is
> confusing.

No, it's not even that. The status command shows you the state of your
network interfaces, that's all. It says nothing about the various
networks you are connected to (that would be another meaning of
"network").

> If this second meaning is true, it would make far more sense if
> 'network' was not listed as running in system-config-services.  Or had
> another name such as 'default_networking' (poor choice but ...) that
> would assign some definition and distinction to it. 

"networking" would be clearer perhaps.

poc