NetworkManager Manages Some Enhancements

[drag]

That's a pretty open-ended out you left yourself there. NetworkMangager falls in to that category of software that I label "I'm smarter than you". It unilaterally makes decisions for you. (Though I haven't used Windows in 15 years, this was my main gripe about it. And it doesn't appear that things have changed much.) NetworkManager is a life-saver for portable equipment. But for a static environment, a static configuration is always going to do better than a busy-body daemon.

I have a desktop with a 'static' configuration.

I have 2 network interfaces. One is a dedicated bridge with no level 3 network functionality used at all. That network interface's only purpose is to connection my virtual machines to a specially configured port on my OpenWRT router. It runs both Ipv6 and ipv4 traffic. The second one is just the one that is for normal desktop activity, mostly ipv4 with ipv6 capabilities. I use the Redhat-style network config scripts for the bridge interface and network manager for the normal desktop connection.

Occasionally the cable modem connection drops out. Outages or I forgot to pay the bill or something. For whatever reason it goes done once in a blue moon. But I still want internet access.. so what I do is I plug in my phone and connect to the internet on a 3G access over a virtual ethernet device over USB to my phone. It takes two clicks, one to disable the p6p1 ethernet port and the second one to enable the virtual eth port to my phone.

Network manager can handle all of this

I run Linux on a hundred or so cash registers. And believe me, you *do not* want to leave the networking up to the default NetworkManager in that scenario. On *any* distro.

I developed Linux for embedded systems in previous jobs. Some of them were POS-style systems. I am not going to run any software on that sort of system except what is explicitly needed, which the vast majority of the time is going to be one single full screen application and a extremely limited userland. More then likely consisting of a mostly of a stripped down version of busy box and a Xserver. If I need more then that then it's probably going to be a stripped down version of CentOS or Debian. Believe it or not I can install CentOS with full Selinux support, full Java stack on a 2G compact flash drive.... no compiling anything and using the default kernel.

Why would I do something like that? Because it's a dedicated single purpose setup that will get shipped out onto approximately 25,000 devices, at a minimum. It also has to comply to a number of state and federal regulations as well as the specific requirements of customers. So it's worth the headache.

But it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Cute that you brought it up though.

We were doing this long before PA. (Yes, network transparency can be nice. But ESD, simple as it is, works better.)

Yes I am well aware of ESD. This is the first time I saw anybody try to use the word "Works" and "ESD" in the same sentence with a straight face. It was terrible when it was new and it is still terrible now. It's 'simple' as 'simply terrible'.

And with much better stability.

Yes. It's very consistently horrible. It's stability is unparalleled in that regard.

I spot test from time to time. Too often does sound just mysteriously stop, requiring PA to be restarted. On a variety of hardware. So it's not "a problem with my configuration" as people love to say.

Seems very likely though since I use PA on quite a wide variety of hardware and don't have that problems.

Never once have I missed any of PA's supposed features. Maybe a few people out there do need it. Let them yum or apt-get it.

The supposed feature is really 'Make Linux Audio Not Terrible'. It gets much closer to that then anything else that has come along so far.

IMO, Lennart flits from project to project a bit much. I think he's looking to destroy our init system next with his cool-sounding, but fatally flawed socket-based fiasco.

So far it's been working terrifically.