On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Konstantin Olchanski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:44:42PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On Monday, April 09, 2012 12:31:39 PM Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... and the current NetworkManager doesn't handle many production server networking tasks,
>>>> so upstream left the existing mechanism in place so choice is available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they have not. In SL6, they have removed the old graphical system-config-network tool,
>>> so either use nm-connection-editor or vi.
>>
>> The 'existing mechanism' I refer to is the 'network' service and the older ifcfg-ethX files. The assumption made in EL6 is that if you use a GUI you will use NetworkManager.
>
> That's right. Nm manager gui or vi. Our way or the highway. So you arrive to a remote location
> to fix broken network config and find that the mouse walked away, too, welcome to vi. As I say,
> people who come up with this stuff do not think beyound "it works on my laptop".

It's RH's right as a distribution to decide to make us choose between
vi and nm-connection-editor, in the same way that it decided to drop
sysvinit for upstart in v6 and will almost certainly drop upstart for
systemd in v7. I've never used any of the system-config-* tools and I
vaguely (vaguely!) remember a thread where a developer proposed to
deprecate some or all of them.