Slashdot Mirror
NetworkManager 1.0 Released After Ten Years Development
An anonymous reader writes: After ten years of development focused on improving and simplifying Linux networking, NetworkManager 1.0 was released. NetworkManager 1.0 brings many features including an increasingly modernized client library, improved command-line support, a lightweight internal DHCP client, better Bluetooth support, VPN enhancements, WWAN IPv6 support, and other features.
One of the few unix command line tools whose command begins with a major letter.
NetworkManager 2.0 will debut in the year of the Linux desktop.
why does it have a DHCP client? Will it still be possible to configure things manually from the command line, or do I always need a desktop environment now to connect to a wireless ethernet? Why isn't it just a thin wrapper on systemd?
Really, why do we need anything more than ifconfig and ethtool?
So, I want dnsmasq dynamically configured to use special name servers, in addition to and not in lieu of my regular name servers, when, and only when, a certain openvpn tunnel is active, as opposed to other openvpn tunnels I also have. Is this, after a decade of work, feasible using NetworkManager's normal built-in GUI interface? Or does it still cater to only straightforward DHCP wired and wireless use cases, ignoring anything move involved, as it has always done?
I thought so.
Dear distro makers; continue to anticipate the needs of those of us that cannot tolerate the limitations of NetworkManager and need to purge the thing from our systems. Specifically, ensure that it can be removed without being told the kernel depends on it, or some other ridiculousness. Thank you.
NM has been great over the past 2-3 years, at least as for my usage with KDE. Before that it was pretty unstable in my experience. Not sure what'll change (if anything, too lazy to read the changelog) with the coming update, but I'm sure I'll have it within the week since I run Arch.
The most important feature is that it can be disabled, masked and unistalled without loosing functionality, as oppposed to other new TM things that I can't get rid of that easily
Good thing our AI overlords are taking all our jawbz
So, I want dnsmasq dynamically configured to use special name servers, in addition to and not in lieu of my regular name servers, when, and only when, a certain openvpn tunnel is active, as opposed to other openvpn tunnels I also have. Is this, after a decade of work, feasible using NetworkManager's normal built-in GUI interface?
As far as I can tell, you can specify "Additional DNS servers" for one particular VPN, at least in the version of NM included with Xubuntu 14.04 LTS.
When you follow these steps, what happens differently from what you expect?
And I have been a constant Linux user since 1994. This cannot be too important.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You've probably never hear of it because NetworkManager is quite superfluous in Linux.
TFS says:
It's hard to see how one could simplify Linux networking. It requires one ip addr command to set an IP address and one ip route command to set a default route. And on IPv6 even those are unnecessary, it's automatic.
And these guys spent 10 years simplifying that? The announcement is quite surreal.
Sounds like the new feature list for Windows XP.
One of the first things I do with any Linux install is to disable Network Manager. This and Pulse Audio were the precursors to really intrusive and rarely functional systems in Fedora. Once these are disabled the system works rather well. Fedora finally convinced me to switch back to Slackware for everything, not just the servers.
Fucking bag of shit that it is.
Then they wonder where the year of the Linux desktop has not still come.
Seriously speaking, NetworkManager does pretty fine work too on servers. You apparently have not tried it in the last a few years... It works.
I got rid of it years ago. Never looked back.
Since NetworkManager, day-to-day network use (be it WiFi, wired or whatever) Just Works. I like that.
However, when (as a developer, hardware-tinkerer or network problem solver) you are plugging in and out cables, connecting devices, etc, it would be nice to have NetworkManager to be put on "mute" or something. Just keep my fixed IP on the correct devices and stop enabling and disabling connections. That's the only time I turn the service off.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
One step away from predesigned usage pattern and you are in conflict with NM. This is terribly wrong when system level tool force you to fight to solve some rather mundane tasks. It is wrong when it is easier to edit manually supplicant config files to configure WiFi properly, then extend NM a little.
I'm not a brake. I'm an accelerator. Just a slow one...
..it will be replaced by systemd sooner or later. It's actually one of the long term systemd goals.
Well, you don't have to figth it. It will autoconfigure just fine after moving the cables. All you need to do is wait the 500ms it takes to do a new DHCP request and get the same IP adress again. If that is too long, you should probably be using a static configuration in the first place.
10 years for version 1.0? Really?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Is there even a reason for this tool? I have never used it and have never _seen_ a use for it. Why do we keep shoveling in more code in places where it is not needed?
One step away from predesigned usage pattern and you are in conflict
This is so typical in Linux world. :(
Stuff has fragile integration and when you step away from the beaten path, weird glitches appear.
to be replaced by systemd.
nm includes dhcp client, systemd also. both are RH projects, wtf.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
useless and buggy before, useless and buggy now. Only handless well a couple use cases, and as soon as you try to do something different it is going to actively work against you.
Lots of expensive wasted effort from people that just don't know any better.
Except not.
In the simplest use case, that of a college student in a coffee shop being totally p0wned, NM works great. Because the end user only wants one live network connection (and NM will choose the criminal AP, of course, since that will have better signal strength then the coffee shop AP) and has no serious network connected storage.
In the use case of an actual professional computer scientist® doing tasks more meaningful than browsing pr0n, NM is an abomination. You decide to jack into the AoE or FCoE net to do some diagnosis, and you lose your networking. Change anything with the CLI (as knowledgeable people might need to do) and NM immediately tries to change it back, perhaps breaking all networking in the process.
This is why NM is a fine helper for those who are using their GUI laptops as toys or newsreaders, but anyone doing serious work removes the package immediately. It's inflexibly targeted at the barely computer literate user. Pros don't generally need or want NM on their work machines, although some will happily use it on their play time laptops.
And of course a real computer professional© will use any tool if it suits the needs of the moment, so don't take the above rant as an unbreakable set of rules. Nonetheless NM is not targeted at pros. That's not a problem, really, it's just something everybody knows.
I totally agree. Some years back, mid 2008 or 2009, NM could not handle a static IP address. Sure, static addresses aren't always common, but the GUI bits were there. However, the backend had not been wired up yet - at least, that's what I observed with Ubuntu and Fedora from that time-frame. Is it possible the testing wasn't done? Amazing that this happened to two distros simultaneously. /etc/rc.local. Wasn't hard for me, but it made some of the new Ubuntu converts question why Linux had to be so difficult. Especially when it took one or two Ubuntu versions to fix. That's a year to a year-and-a-half for a fairly common networking setup. I cannot imagine what the fellow with the complicated VPN arrangement went through. Also looks like having both a static and a dynamic address on the same NIC requires editing config files.
The solution, in this case, was to disable NM and manually enter your IP address via ifconfig, and then your default gateway via route. Once completed, you saved your command lines into
If editing config files are how non standard things are done, why are the other projects in such a hurry to move their config directions into a binary registry of programs? Will Linux get a flood of stuff like StopSign 'AntiVirus' or MyClea...PC or Hos-t-s file fixers. Okay, never mind. I don't want to know, and I really don't want to summon those trolls.
be replaced by systemd-network-manager (orwhateverthefuckit'llbecalled).
"Because fuck using tested, proven, stable code. That shit wasn't invented here! HARRUMPH!"
--- Systemd Developers
Not going to dispute Eric Green's points, but in my experience NetworkManager is handy on laptops for wifi setup. It's more convenient than dicking around with config files, and works just as well most of the time.
You're an idiot if you put your manual network config in rc.local on an Ubuntu system. If that is your story, I have no problems believing the newbies in your vicinity thought it was difficult.
And since I distinctly remember running Debian+Gnome+NetworkManager in that same timeframe with no problems whatsoever using a static config, I think your problems were more of a PEBCAK nature.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Thank you for your insightful commentary about my mental status. Yes, I may not have 160 IQ like you. I'm actually thankful for that, because I understand how to relate and empathize with other humans. You clearly do not. Since the problem must have been me, please go install Hardy Heron or Intrepid Ibex and set up a static address. If you can, please go here and tell these users they are all idiots also. We need people like you to keep losers like me and these other Ubuntu fellows on Windows where they belong. After all, if you cannot set up a DHCP server to hand out static addresses, what are you doing running Linux, right?
Thanks!
This is a piece of software which is very user-oriented instead of service oriented. The short implication of that is, if a computer is dedicated to a single user, it's a rather useful toolkit (most of the time). (it causes havoc if one's trying to do something outside of "normal desktop behaviour")
This software is actively hostile in a service-oriented environment - aggressively so. It's possible if one controls all of the network resource allocation systems (dhcp et al), that one can minimize the harm caused by this software, but the best solution is still to purge it if it exists on a server.
Until it can be installed and run with a default state of "unengaged" when there's no GUI present, it'll remain unsafe. At least they're addressing - finally - the issue that it is essentially hostile if there's no GUI (eg X) present.
I'm not going to install a hacked-to-shit Debian install to coddle the typo of morons Shuttleworth seems to think to be a demographic worth mining, no.
No, sorry, I don't like to relate to and empathize with idiots. If that makes me an elitist, so be it. It doesn't take away anything from the fact that I am not going to take anecdotes about Ubuntu fuckups as fact, unlike you. The facts of who is rational here are evident.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?