Probably stupid question, but

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 04 September 2013 08:21:19 Patrick Asselman did opine:

> On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 20:43 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> >>> And it should definately be intelligent enough to understand that if
> >>> someone has defined a static ip address for their machine, it
> >>> should not just blindly ignore it and go for DHCP. Maybe it could
> >>> check first to see if DHCP is available. Maybe it can still do its
> >>> thing but in such a way that the static IP address is kept as it
> >>> was. I don't care what it does, as long as it does not break
> >>> network connectivity. And currently, (or at least last time I
> >>> checked), it does.
> >> 
> >> I can't understand what is the problem that others seem to have with
> >> fixed ip addresses in network manager.  I use fixed IP addresses
> >> simply by setting the Method to Manual in IPv4 Settings in NM and
> >> entering the address etc.  I have no problems at all with this.
> > 
> > I agree with you Colin.  I've done this many times and it works
> > perfectly fine.  You can set IP address, netmask, broadcast, DNS
> > server, etc. using the NetworkManager configuration.  If there is a
> > situation where this fails, please describe it.

Ok, for starters, all the gui tools to configure it run as the user, and 
therefore cannot modify the files involved.  It was that way when I 
installed this Lucid LTS in mid-2011 at any rate.  If it sees a perms 
problem, it should ask for a password and just get to it.

When that doesn't work, and the failure is silent, even in the logs, then 
you'll have to excuse me but I WILL make it work my way.

That seems to have improved with Precise, its now asking for a password IF 
precise is installed from the fully booted screen icon AFTER you have 
configured the network and its working.  But install it from that first 
ncurses requester as it loads from the dvd and you are summarily screwed.

> > NetworkManager absolutely supports static IP addressing.  What it
> > _doesn't_ support is "Joe's Linux Distro Network Interface
> > Configuration File Format".  If you want static IP addresses then you
> > need to use NetworkManager to configure them, you can't go behind its
> > back and muck around with underlying files such as
> > /etc/network/interfaces
> > or /etc/sysconfig/networking or whatever magical file format your
> > distro of choice invented, and expect it to work.  NetworkManager is
> > not an Ubuntu-only tool, it's a generic package used by most distros.
> > 
> > If you want to manage your network interfaces by hand and edit
> > underlying files directly, then don't use Network Manager; that's
> > fine. But don't blame Network Manager for being broken when you're
> > purposefully breaking it.

No dammit, we gave NM a chance to work and it would not!  Cannot anyone 
here understand that?  We did it the Sid Dabster way because NM gave us no 
choice but to do it that way.
> 
> I would have fully agreed with you, if it wasn't for the way it was
> pushed through my throat.
> 
> A few years back I had a working Ubuntu server v11, static ip addresses,
> no NM (as far as i know), that I needed to remote upgrade via ssh to
> v12 using the alternate install cd image. I knew nothing about NM.
> After the upgrade, the system didnt come online anymore. Turned out the
> static ip addresses had been overwritten by NM making the machine not
> have any network.
> 
> Now please give me one valid excuse why a perfectly good working server
> should be without network after an upgrade? That is not Managing a
> Network, that is Breaking it.
> 
> Surely NM could be made so that it can see what the current
> configuration is, and install itself in such a way that the situation
> essentially remains the same, except that NM is used? That way I would
> have been happy with the new NM taking care of things. The way things
> went, I didnt trust it and didnt use it (until Ubu v13, where i had a
> chance to install it on a server that i had physical access to, so i
> could just see what happens).
> 
> I don't mind improvements on Linux, causing me to have to alter my
> normal way of working a little. I'm not someone who sticks to their old
> methods no matter what. But I would really like a heads up on important
> changes like NM, and really really like for them to work properly
> before being incorporated into a LTS version.
> 
> Best regards,
> Patrick

I am 100% with Patrick on this. NM is NOT ready for prime time, chase it 
out of the barn with a load of buckshot in its behind & don't let it back 
on the property until it can play nice.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://gene.homelinux.net:6309/gene> should be up!

What causes the mysterious death of everyone?
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
         law-abiding citizens.