FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-03-2011, 09:28 PM
Lars Wirzenius
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On ma, 2011-04-04 at 00:18 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> If you read my mails without a prejudice you will notice it.

I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism
you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For
example:

> If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that
> it is "really disastrous" (I would agree that the network-manager
> approach is really disastrous, however) as at least in my cases (which
> are not so trivial) ifupdown works okay (and if not then at least I
> would know ways how to workaround problems).

You say Network Manager is disastrous, when it manifestly works quite
well for quite a number of people. It is hard to take you seriously,
when you say things that are so clearly wrong.

Please note that I am not taking any stance for or against ifupdown, or
even Network Manager. Neither is a universally acceptable solution for
all users all the time. It would be nice if this thread could morph into
a discussion of what such a solution would be like, and how to get
there, based on technical merit. The current shit-flinging dick size
contest is preventing that discussion. Please stop it.

That goes for everyone participating, not just Stanislav.

A necessary pre-condition for designing a solution would be to list use
cases and requirements that it needs to handle, and an assessment of
problems with current solutions. Bringing up things that current
solutions don't handle is perfectly OK, but needs to be done in a way
that doesn't antagonize those who have a preference among the existing
imperfect solutions. It's silly, but people do get emotionally attached
to software they know, especially if it's something they've helped
build. In a perfect world one could ignore such attachments, if they
existed at all, but we do not live in such a world. So if you (plural
you) do care about having a good way of configuring network interfaces,
you will refrain from insulting existing solutions, or ranting about
them, because that's not going to help.

--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1301866123.2967.52.camel@havelock.liw.fi">http://lists.debian.org/1301866123.2967.52.camel@havelock.liw.fi
 
Old 04-03-2011, 11:42 PM
Stanislav Maslovski
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:28:42PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism
> you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For
> example:
>
> > If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that
> > it is "really disastrous" (I would agree that the network-manager
> > approach is really disastrous, however) as at least in my cases (which
> > are not so trivial) ifupdown works okay (and if not then at least I
> > would know ways how to workaround problems).
>
> You say Network Manager is disastrous, when it manifestly works quite
> well for quite a number of people. It is hard to take you seriously,
> when you say things that are so clearly wrong.

Be it clearly wrong or not, I strongly disbelieve that a tool with a
hard-wired logic such a network-manager may seem a reasonable
replacement for such a configurable tool as ifupdown. These two tools
have been designed with absolutely different goals in mind. And I
think it is quite clear that even with the current limitations of
ifupdown (some were mentioned in this thread) its intended use case is
wider than the use case of network-manager.

--
Stanislav


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110403234229.GA27504@kaiba.homelan">http://lists.debian.org/20110403234229.GA27504@kaiba.homelan
 
Old 04-04-2011, 05:29 AM
"Dmitry E. Oboukhov"
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

>>> If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that
>>> it is "really disastrous" (I would agree that the network-manager
>>> approach is really disastrous, however) as at least in my cases (which
>>> are not so trivial) ifupdown works okay (and if not then at least I
>>> would know ways how to workaround problems).
>>
>> You say Network Manager is disastrous, when it manifestly works quite
>> well for quite a number of people. It is hard to take you seriously,
>> when you say things that are so clearly wrong.

SM> Be it clearly wrong or not, I strongly disbelieve that a tool with a
SM> hard-wired logic such a network-manager may seem a reasonable
SM> replacement for such a configurable tool as ifupdown.

I fully agree that.

It is wrong tendency to replace rich, functional, certified mechanizm
by stupid scheme.

Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
but shouldn't replace it.

--

. '`. Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’ : email: unera@debian.org jabber://UNera@uvw.ru
`. `~’ GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
`- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555 E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537
 
Old 04-04-2011, 06:52 AM
"Dmitry E. Oboukhov"
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
RH> Hi,

RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
>> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
>> but shouldn't replace it.

RH> Please refrain from calling people "stupid users" just because they use a
RH> software that you don't like.

There was a way "User can do anything", the way was replaced by the way
"User can do something in list". Obviously that this action has been
done for stupid users.

Yes, the old scheme *had* some defects, but new scheme *is* a defect.

But Ok, %s/stupid/ordinary/g

I agree that we must think about ordinary users but I disagree that we
must waste good instruments to please these users.
--

. '`. Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’ : email: unera@debian.org jabber://UNera@uvw.ru
`. `~’ GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
`- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555 E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537
 
Old 04-04-2011, 07:00 AM
Steve Langasek
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> RH> Hi,

> RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> >> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
> >> but shouldn't replace it.

> RH> Please refrain from calling people "stupid users" just because they use a
> RH> software that you don't like.

> There was a way "User can do anything", the way was replaced by the way
> "User can do something in list". Obviously that this action has been
> done for stupid users.

Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time has no value. I am
happily using network manager on my laptop, because unlike ifconfig it's
easy to configure for use on new wireless networks.

I am not happy that network manager bypasses ifconfig to do this; I would
have much preferred a daemon that could properly integrate with the existing
infrastructure we had. But neither that, nor you calling me a stupid user,
is much motivation for me to go back to the pain of managing wireless
connections via ifupdown.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
 
Old 04-04-2011, 07:49 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 00:00:01 -0700
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> > There was a way "User can do anything", the way was replaced by the way
> > "User can do something in list". Obviously that this action has been
> > done for stupid users.
>
> Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time has no value. I am
> happily using network manager on my laptop, because unlike ifconfig it's
> easy to configure for use on new wireless networks.
>
> I am not happy that network manager bypasses ifconfig to do this; I would
> have much preferred a daemon that could properly integrate with the existing
> infrastructure we had. But neither that, nor you calling me a stupid user,
> is much motivation for me to go back to the pain of managing wireless
> connections via ifupdown.

I wouldn't go back to wireless via ifupdown either, I'd use wicd
because I've had my share of problems with network-manager. The real
issue, for me, is that I don't want to go to the pain of managing USB
networking connections via a daemon which is predicated on managing
wireless connections and/or complex bridging and VPN requirements.

There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs
to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One
tool does not suit all here. It's not just about daemon vs GUI frontend
or whether to use DBus or Python - it's about having two or more tools
which work together instead of one simple tool which gets side-stepped
by a more complex tool because of a poor design.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 04-04-2011, 10:31 AM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:00:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> > On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > RH> Hi,
>
> > RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> > >> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown
> > >> but shouldn't replace it.
>
> > RH> Please refrain from calling people "stupid users" just because they use a
> > RH> software that you don't like.
>
> > There was a way "User can do anything", the way was replaced by the way
> > "User can do something in list". Obviously that this action has been
> > done for stupid users.
>
> Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time has no value. I am
> happily using network manager on my laptop, because unlike ifconfig it's
> easy to configure for use on new wireless networks.
>
> I am not happy that network manager bypasses ifconfig to do this;
[...]

I am. NM uses the correct interface, i.e. netlink. ifconfig is a
BSD legacy.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404103130.GF2268@decadent.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20110404103130.GF2268@decadent.org.uk
 
Old 04-04-2011, 11:59 AM
Russell Coker
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs
> to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One
> tool does not suit all here. It's not just about daemon vs GUI frontend
> or whether to use DBus or Python - it's about having two or more tools
> which work together instead of one simple tool which gets side-stepped
> by a more complex tool because of a poor design.

It does seem likely that there won't be one tool that satisfies all
requirements. The current situation of giving users the choice of ifupdown,
NetworkManager, wicd, and probably other things seems good.

It doesn't seem likely that I would want NM on one of my servers. But having
it on my laptop and netbook would be good if it worked as desired. Last time
I tested NM it didn't work as desired - or at least not with the amount of
effort I was prepared to put into it.

If the plan is to depend more on NM in the next release then I'll probably
test it some more on a laptop running Unstable and file some bugs.

--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201104042159.43852.russell@coker.com.au">http://lists.debian.org/201104042159.43852.russell@coker.com.au
 
Old 04-04-2011, 12:14 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:59:43PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> > There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs
> > to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One
> > tool does not suit all here. It's not just about daemon vs GUI frontend
> > or whether to use DBus or Python - it's about having two or more tools
> > which work together instead of one simple tool which gets side-stepped
> > by a more complex tool because of a poor design.
>
> It does seem likely that there won't be one tool that satisfies all
> requirements. The current situation of giving users the choice of ifupdown,
> NetworkManager, wicd, and probably other things seems good.
[...]

We should be able to say 'for these sorts of configurations, X is probably
best, but for those, Y is better.' (I suspect that no single X could be
recommended for all configurations.) Giving users 5 choices and no
guidance would be unhelpful.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404121455.GK2268@decadent.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20110404121455.GK2268@decadent.org.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org