inittab

[Sundar Nagarajan]

Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Fr, 2009-07-03 at 11:37 -0400, Jay Daniels wrote:
>> I too find this odd that the default network tool is nothing but a gnome 
>> applet.  Why is this?  
> because the default ubuntu desktop CD installs and runs a gnome desktop,
> its just a default selection that matches the borad masses best, you are
> indeed free to change it to what you like ... 
> 
> if you want a non-desktop system there are ubuntu server CDs which
> use /etc/network/interfaces for network configuration by default.
> 
> ciao
> 	oli
> 

I can possibly understand / appreciate why ubuntu chose network-manager 
over wicd - perhaps because it is more stable, better configuration 
options, supports more wireless card options etc.

My point is that the DESIGN of network-manager appears defective, or at 
least puzzling. It is a network-manager, not a 'network-manager only if 
X is running'. On a default ubuntu desktop, using network-manager, if 
the user (even one of the 'masses') later installs a package that 
includes a daemon that accesses the network on startup, that daemon will 
not find the network up when it starts up during the init sequence, 
because network-manager has not run yet. And this is something that 
cannot be FIXED, because daemons will ALWAYS run in run-levels lower 
than 5, and network-manager will ALWAYS run after X is started 
(run-level 5). Upstart can't fix this either, because upstart is active 
UNTIL the init sequence is complete (not after X is started). So the 
hypothetical network daemon cannot wait for network-manager to emit a 
signal saying it is complete. The only workaround will be for all 
hypothetical network daemons to 'know' that part of the networking setup 
may not be complete even though 'networking' (according to init / 
upstart) is complete.

The 'right' design would be similar to what wicd uses - a daemon that 
manages the actual network card, and a graphical front-end that provides 
a friendly UI to view / change configuration.

And then there's the fact that this choice by ubuntu conflicts with the 
overall philosophy that there is essentially no difference between the 
desktop and server versions other than additional packages installed to 
realize the graphical desktop (apart from some minor tweaks of the 
kernel for the server sometimes).



-- 
Sundar Nagarajan
Linux User #170123 | Ubuntu User #2805