After 10+ Years, NetworkManager Reaches v1.0

[phoronix]

Phoronix: After 10+ Years, NetworkManager Reaches v1.0

After more than ten years of development, Dan Williams of Red Hat has announced the release of NetworkManager 1.0. The NetworkManager 1.0 release is more than just bumping the version after waiting long enough, but there's many improvements too over NetworkManager 0.9!..

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTg2OTE

[mark45]

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.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

Congratulations. It's a major accomplishment and has made networking configuration better than Windows and just second behind OS X.

[DeepDayze]

Great work and NM has come a long way when it was a pretty broken network management client that stomped all over your carefully crafted /etc/network/interfaces file settings rather than coexisting with it. The commandline utility will do sysadmins proud too by making it a snap to make changes to network settings.

[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.

I doubt it - network manager is pretty much outside the network stack proper; it's more of a convenience for desktop and laptop users.

[leech]

I doubt it - network manager is pretty much outside the network stack proper; it's more of a convenience for desktop and laptop users.

Actually with nmcli and nmtui, it pretty much is a nice replacement for the old systemconfig-network (or whatever that utility was on redhat based systems). My biggest problem with Network Manager (granted I still haven't used 1.0, just 0.9.10) is that it doesn't quite set up bridges correctly through the UI. Also, virt-manager still needs to be upgraded to create a bridge through the NM API if it detects it. It looked to me like even an initial CentOS 6.5 install uses Network Manager by default.

So I kind of agree... but disagree. Since you can finally manage the network with it for servers.

[david_lynch]

Actually with nmcli and nmtui, it pretty much is a nice replacement for the old systemconfig-network (or whatever that utility was on redhat based systems). My biggest problem with Network Manager (granted I still haven't used 1.0, just 0.9.10) is that it doesn't quite set up bridges correctly through the UI. Also, virt-manager still needs to be upgraded to create a bridge through the NM API if it detects it. It looked to me like even an initial CentOS 6.5 install uses Network Manager by default.

So I kind of agree... but disagree. Since you can finally manage the network with it for servers.

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.

[Ericg]

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's referring to the kernel side of it. They have a better network subsystem.

[liam]

That's referring to the kernel side of it. They have a better network subsystem.

In particular what's the issue? I was unable to find concrete data when I searched for the problems a Facebook employee posted about on reditt(iirc).



To mark:
What does osx do better?

[leech]

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.

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.