After 10+ Years, NetworkManager Reaches v1.0

[GreatEmerald]

Hm, now if only someone cared to fix the NetworkManager Cisco VPN GUI to allow sending empty strings to log in...

[pal666]

(Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to vi the relevant files)

feel free to use vi with nm, i allow you

[Ericg]

Yeah, that was what I was hinting at. I would prefer good ol' text files as well. They worked, were very functional, and never had issues. But this is the new world...where peiple use ridiculous shit like yaml and xml when a flat fucking text file will suffice, is easier to read, and doesn't make you want to gouge your eyes out with a spork.

I never got the hating on XML and YAML. Don't get me wrong, XML -can- be very ugly but it can also be perfectly readible. YAML is even more readible though I think I still prefer ini-style text files.

[david_lynch]

I heard Facebook is working on a new network stack for Linux "to make it as good as BSD's", I wonder if it also relates to the network manager.

That crack about making Linux networking "as good as BSDs" sounds just like the sort of thing a FreeBSD fanboy would say, but I'm having a hard time finding any way to quantify such an absurd claim. To such a one i would simply say "Wake up, Rip Van Winkle! 1993 was a long time ago, and Linux has matched or surpassed FreeBSD in every meaningful measure of performance". I've searched the benchmark results where networking performance is critical (supercomputing, specweb etc) and find that such performance contests are absolutely dominated by Linux. I can't find FreeBSD systems anywhere near the top - so how bad could Linux networking performance be, really?

[Ericg]

That crack about making Linux networking "as good as BSDs" sounds just like the sort of thing a FreeBSD fanboy would say, but I'm having a hard time finding any way to quantify such an absurd claim. To such a one i would simply say "Wake up, Rip Van Winkle! 1993 was a long time ago, and Linux has matched or surpassed FreeBSD in every meaningful measure of performance". I've searched the benchmark results where networking performance is critical (supercomputing, specweb etc) and find that such performance contests are absolutely dominated by Linux. I can't find FreeBSD systems anywhere near the top - so how bad could Linux networking performance be, really?

You are either lying out of your ass or hopelessly trolling... Linux is good, but its not perfect. Facebook and Netflix both stated that they go for FreeBSD over Linux for certain servers because FreeBSD's network subsystem scales to many more connections with higher performance than Linux' does.

[david_lynch]

You are either lying out of your ass or hopelessly trolling... Linux is good, but its not perfect. Facebook and Netflix both stated that they go for FreeBSD over Linux for certain servers because FreeBSD's network subsystem scales to many more connections with higher performance than Linux' does.

Awesome comeback. Apparently a FreeBSD fanboy who was stung by the frankness of my comments. Well, i won't stoop to your level.

Instead let me first of all point out that such anecdotal examples as you provide don't carry as much weight as verifiable facts. Perhaps you could share any references you might have, pointing to verifiable, repeatable performance testing results showing that FreeBSD does networking faster than Linux?

Upon reflection, I find it sad, yet funny, that when I asked "how bad could Linux networking performance be, really?" you somehow confounded that question as a statement that "Linux is absolutely perfect". As it turns out, I've never made the claim that Linux was absolutely perfect. Everything - even Linux - can be further optimized, in the spirit of Kaizen.

What i actually did was question the dogmatic assertion that BSD networking is somehow always magically faster than Linux, and that is apparently verboten in these parts.

[asdfblah]

This piece of crap software has given enough headaches to people, and it's still doing it...

That crack about making Linux networking "as good as BSDs" sounds just like the sort of thing a FreeBSD fanboy would say, but I'm having a hard time finding any way to quantify such an absurd claim. To such a one i would simply say "Wake up, Rip Van Winkle! 1993 was a long time ago, and Linux has matched or surpassed FreeBSD in every meaningful measure of performance". I've searched the benchmark results where networking performance is critical (supercomputing, specweb etc) and find that such performance contests are absolutely dominated by Linux. I can't find FreeBSD systems anywhere near the top - so how bad could Linux networking performance be, really?

Are you new to this website?

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc1NjY

or simply

http://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+linux+networking

[tuxd3v]

Sure, maybe now you can manage a server using network manager (Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to vi the relevant files) but my point is that using network manager or not using it won't affect network performance benchmarks either way.

NO, you are not old fashioned...you ARE a professional

Nobody used network manager in server clusters...because some times is a mess...and it do some things that sometimes, you don't want!!

The sysadmin should be the owner of the system, and Network managers messes with it...so get rid of it...

In the servers usually we remove it...and a lot of other things of course, because the network should work for years and years.

Since you learn how to avoid it...you are in heaven!!

But in Desktopś laptops yes I use it, because its simple, and in Desktop world, my focus is not the system I am running, but what I will do with it, servers and Desktop's are diferent..but its good to see cli stuff to network-manager, for the people out there that are not used to work with linux.

But this has nothing to do with FACEBOOK NEW NETOWORK STACK(networm-manaer are a tool to deal with network tools but in a simpler way, not a network stack at all)...that is a realy cool thing that will speed up linux network stack..

[q2dg]

How will network-manager coexist with systemd-networkd?

I don't still know how to mix (conceptually) these two piece of software. Systemd-networkd will replace network-manager? Will it be a complement? I'm loss, sorry

[89c51]

I don't still know how to mix (conceptually) these two piece of software. Systemd-networkd will replace network-manager? Will it be a complement? I'm loss, sorry

Simple.

Networkmanager / connman for desktop mobile stuff.

Systemd-networkd for containers and basic networking stuff on servers or whatever.