NetworkManager-resolv.conf -

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:39:42 +0100 lee <lee at yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:
> Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:45:54 +0100 lee <lee at yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:
> >> There should be a clear choice when installing --- and/or by
> >> package dependencies --- so users can pick what they prefer.
> >
> > There should also be a default choice, in case the user doesn't know
> > what to choose. Currently, the default is NM. Experienced users who
> > instead wish to use the old network service, should be already
> > familiar with the procedure of disabling NM and enabling network
> > service.
> 
> The installer didn't give me a choice.

The installer requires NM for the installation process (if network
access is required during installation). After the installation is
complete and you boot the system, NM is configured to be used by
default. If you prefer the old way, you are welcome to disable it and
configure the network service. That is the sense in which I noted that
you have a choice.

During the installation process, no, you don't have a choice --- if you
need network during installation, you have to use NM. But I don't see
anything wrong with that, since for install purposes one needs only
some rather basic connectivity (if at all), nothing fancy. NM can take
care of that equally well as the old network service would.
 
> > As far as package installation choices, I believe both the old
> > network service and NM are tied in too deeply with dependencies,
> > and in a typical setup they both must be installed on the system.
> 
> That's why I'm saying that they need to fix the dependencies for
> networkmanager.  It's obsolete unless you have the special use cases
> which it is useful for.

I doubt that the dependencies can be "fixed" in any way. Software that
depends on NM, well, depends on it, and will not work without it. If
you think some dependency is superfluous, file a bug against that
component and see what the developers think about it.

> > A novice user would just run the default setup, with NM controlling
> > all interfaces, use the GUI to configure NM, and everything would
> > work as expected, without any confusion. An experienced user should
> > know what he wants to setup, and how to do it. By definition, an
> > experienced user should not get confused in setting up networking,
> > or otherwise he is actually lacking experience.
> 
> Your definition is flawed.  An experienced user who doesn't know how
> Fedora handles the configuration of network interfaces does run into
> problems because networkmanager messes with things and the
> documentation is insufficient.  A novice user will run into trouble
> as well when something doesn't work with networkmanager, and they
> might need even better documentation than experienced users do.

That is the wrath of Linux distributions --- each does things slightly
differently, and one needs to get acquainted with each of the little
quirks of every particular distro. I see no way around that, except
telling one distro to be more like another, which won't work of course.

I agree that documentation can always be better, but as you are
probably aware, it is hard to find people who can write good docs in
their free time...

> For all users, networkmanager is obsolete and even a disadvantage due
> to its resource usage unless they have special cases for which it is
> useful.  Making it the default in Fedora without giving users a choice
> was a bad decision.

Um, no, NM was an *upgrade* from the network service, since the latter
doesn't handle wireless interfaces in a reasonable way. If anything,
the old network service is obsolete, and being used only for special
cases (headless servers and such). The vast majority of Fedora users
are running laptops, netbooks, home/office desktops, various mobile
devices, etc., all of which are more convenient to use with NM rather
than the network service. I expect that NM will completely substitute
the network service in the future.

Best, :-)
Marko