resolvconf troubles

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

resolvconf troubles

Glenn English-5
Does anyone know how to get rid of resolvconf?

I'm putting a server together, and resovlconf keeps wiping my /etc/resolv.conf file and replacing the nameserver IP with "# Created by resolvconf" (approx). No nameserver, no anything.

I removed it with Aptitude, and the file started talking about being built with dhcpd. Nameserver still wiped, and Aptitude says there's no package called dhcpd.

These things seem to be triggered by an ifupdown, to either state. I removed some cruft that triggered it; now ifupdown doesn't any more, but a reboot does. As best I can tell, there's nothing in man or on the 'Net about removing it or just making it stop killing my nameserver file.

This is a server. It will have a very stable nameserver IP. I'd like to be able to create a file containing the IP and not have 'helpful' software scribble on the file.

Any and all suggestions will be appreciated...

--
Glenn English

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Michael J. Ford
Hi Glenn,

IMHO, when configuring a server you should really just configure your
interfaces manually with /etc/network/interfaces and define your
nameservers there. That way the your expected servers will always be
listed in /etc/resolv.conf.

More info here: https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration#Configurin
g_the_interface_manually
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 19:03 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> Does anyone know how to get rid of resolvconf?

I'm putting a server together, and resovlconf keeps wiping my /etc/resolv.conf file and replacing the nameserver IP with "# Created by resolvconf" (approx). No nameserver, no anything.

I removed it with Aptitude, and the file started talking about being built with dhcpd. Nameserver still wiped, and Aptitude says there's no package called dhcpd.

These things seem to be triggered by an ifupdown, to either state. I removed some cruft that triggered it; now ifupdown doesn't any more, but a reboot does. As best I can tell, there's nothing in man or on the 'Net about removing it or just making it stop killing my nameserver file.

This is a server. It will have a very stable nameserver IP. I'd like to be able to create a file containing the IP and not have 'helpful' software scribble on the file.

Any and all suggestions will be appreciated...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Gene Heskett-4
In reply to this post by Glenn English-5
On Thursday 27 October 2016 21:03:21 Glenn English wrote:

> Does anyone know how to get rid of resolvconf?
>
> I'm putting a server together, and resovlconf keeps wiping my
> /etc/resolv.conf file and replacing the nameserver IP with "# Created
> by resolvconf" (approx). No nameserver, no anything.
>
> I removed it with Aptitude, and the file started talking about being
> built with dhcpd. Nameserver still wiped, and Aptitude says there's no
> package called dhcpd.
>
> These things seem to be triggered by an ifupdown, to either state. I
> removed some cruft that triggered it; now ifupdown doesn't any more,
> but a reboot does. As best I can tell, there's nothing in man or on
> the 'Net about removing it or just making it stop killing my
> nameserver file.
>
> This is a server. It will have a very stable nameserver IP. I'd like
> to be able to create a file containing the IP and not have 'helpful'
> software scribble on the file.
>
> Any and all suggestions will be appreciated...

At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
that puppy with extreme prejudice.

Set up an /etc/hosts file with the

address FQDN alias

of every other machine including itself, on your local network. Mine has
about 10 entry's ATM.

Then fix resolv.conf to be a REAL file, it may be a link. Contents:

nameserver add.ress.of.router #that couples your machines to the network
using NAT
order host,dns
domain yourlocaldomain.name

Then:
sudo chmod +i /etc/resolv.conf
So nothing can scribble over it.

Then in the /etc/networking/interfaces file, add:

auto eth0
# regular network for local domainname
iface eth0 inet static
# machines local address, matches hosts file entry
address 192.168.XX.ZZ
netmask 255.255.255.0
# the XX's can be anything up to 253, but I'd avoid 0,1,2 as its too
common, they must all match.
# routers address below so it will fwd all dns queries to you ISP if
setup correctly.
gateway 192.168.XX.1

And write it, then do the chmod +i on it too to prevent its getting
scribbled on..

sudo service network restart, and your network should just work.  From
then on.

Now this of course isn't going to work if you are carrying a lappy and
expecting to tap the wifi at any Starbucks you pull into.  Then you are
truly at the mercy of network-mangler, which might work but usually
doesn't. My experience with earlier versions of it was very intermittent
at best.

Now, save your flames, I already put on my nomex suit.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Cindy Sue Causey
In reply to this post by Glenn English-5
On 10/27/16, Glenn English <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does anyone know how to get rid of resolvconf?
>
> I'm putting a server together, and resovlconf keeps wiping my
> /etc/resolv.conf file and replacing the nameserver IP with "# Created by
> resolvconf" (approx). No nameserver, no anything.
>
> I removed it with Aptitude, and the file started talking about being built
> with dhcpd. Nameserver still wiped, and Aptitude says there's no package
> called dhcpd.
>
> These things seem to be triggered by an ifupdown, to either state. I removed
> some cruft that triggered it; now ifupdown doesn't any more, but a reboot
> does. As best I can tell, there's nothing in man or on the 'Net about
> removing it or just making it stop killing my nameserver file.
>
> This is a server. It will have a very stable nameserver IP. I'd like to be
> able to create a file containing the IP and not have 'helpful' software
> scribble on the file.
>
> Any and all suggestions will be appreciated...


My only experience with anything resolvconf is at the beginning of
setting up each new debootstrap. These days, things are usually filled
in properly so I keep moving down the lists of things to do.

Am writing because I just tried a couple Internet searches. They keep
ending up at a different distribution's forum pages, and I'm just not
up for pointing anyone over that-a'way.

BUT... Based on wandering through those pages, it looks like maybe
some searches related to "how do I add a dns server" (without quotes)
might land something. One thing I saw that sounded good *to me* was a
reference about declaring DNS nameserver information in
/etc/network/interfaces. If yours is/are staying the same, it sounds
like a possible solution.

This is that point where I made a disclaimer not too long ago. You
have to be careful about not declaring something in there twice, and
unfortunately I've now forgotten what that something was.. On second
thought, it might have been the gateway declaration that causes a
problem if it's in that file more than once, even if it's the same
number..

Cindy :)

--
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* I comment, therefore I am (procrastinating elsewhere)...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Glenn English-5
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-4

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Gene Heskett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
> that puppy with extreme prejudice.

Don't tell anybody, but that's exactly what I want to do.

> Then fix resolv.conf to be a REAL file, it may be a link.

Hadn't thought of that -- bears looking into.

> Then:
> sudo chmod +i /etc/resolv.conf
> So nothing can scribble over it.

That's the command I was looking for. I didn't know about that one.

> Then in the /etc/networking/interfaces file, add:

No prob -- eth* is defined there.

> sudo service network restart, and your network should just work.  From
> then on.

Thank you very much.

> Now this of course isn't going to work if you are carrying a lappy and
> expecting to tap the wifi at any Starbucks you pull into.  Then you are
> truly at the mercy of network-mangler, which might work but usually
> doesn't.

That's no prob either. It's the servers I'd just as soon worked. There are people who rely on them.

> Now, save your flames, I already put on my nomex suit.

No flames here :-)

Thanks, Gene


As far as NMs go, have you looked at WICD? It's on my Debian Jessie XFCE laptop, and it seems relatively OK. It doesn't do anything without being told to, it allows only one interface up at a time (usually a good idea), and it remembers how to get the damn WiFi going. And you can make all those extraneous APs disappear.

--
Glenn English
--
Glenn English
Did you just click Reply?
If so, change the send
address from gmail to
[hidden email]





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Gene Heskett-4
On Thursday 27 October 2016 22:40:57 Glenn English wrote:

> > On Oct 27, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Gene Heskett <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager,
> > nuke that puppy with extreme prejudice.
>
> Don't tell anybody, but that's exactly what I want to do.
>
> > Then fix resolv.conf to be a REAL file, it may be a link.
>
> Hadn't thought of that -- bears looking into.
>
> > Then:
> > sudo chmod +i /etc/resolv.conf
> > So nothing can scribble over it.
>
> That's the command I was looking for. I didn't know about that one.
>
> > Then in the /etc/networking/interfaces file, add:
>
> No prob -- eth* is defined there.
>
> > sudo service network restart, and your network should just work.
> > From then on.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> > Now this of course isn't going to work if you are carrying a lappy
> > and expecting to tap the wifi at any Starbucks you pull into.  Then
> > you are truly at the mercy of network-mangler, which might work but
> > usually doesn't.
>
> That's no prob either. It's the servers I'd just as soon worked. There
> are people who rely on them.
>
> > Now, save your flames, I already put on my nomex suit.
>
> No flames here :-)
>
> Thanks, Gene
>
>
> As far as NMs go, have you looked at WICD? It's on my Debian Jessie
> XFCE laptop, and it seems relatively OK. It doesn't do anything
> without being told to, it allows only one interface up at a time
> (usually a good idea), and it remembers how to get the damn WiFi
> going. And you can make all those extraneous APs disappear.
>
I have indeed used wicd, 3 or 4 times, Glenn. But the last time I tried
it on a ubu 10-04 lts install, it had apparently been re-written, and
totally emasculated.  I worked out my way for here at the coyote.den and
have not looked for it since.

> --
> Glenn English


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Glenn English-5
In reply to this post by Cindy Sue Causey

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 8:39 PM, Cindy-Sue Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> BUT... Based on wandering through those pages, it looks like maybe
> some searches related to "how do I add a dns server" (without quotes)
> might land something. One thing I saw that sounded good *to me* was a
> reference about declaring DNS nameserver information in
> /etc/network/interfaces. If yours is/are staying the same, it sounds
> like a possible solution.

No, they aren't staying the same. That's my problem.

But adding the nameserver to the interface configuration sounds like yet another good idea. I'll try that. Might bewilder resolvconf a lot.

But Gene's idea of "nuking that puppy" has a nice sound to it.

--
Glenn English

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Glenn English-5
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-4

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Gene Heskett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But the last time I tried
> it on a ubu 10-04 lts install, it had apparently been re-written, and
> totally emasculated.  I worked out my way for here at the coyote.den and
> have not looked for it since.

There's a lot to be said for an emasculated network manager :-)

--
Glenn English

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:59:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2016 21:03:21 Glenn English wrote:

[...]

> At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
> that puppy with extreme prejudice.

I did that ~7 years ago. This was the day I plugged my laptop into the
Ethernet at a customer's site and NM went "Oh, shiny, a wlan!" and
*poof* I was out of the customer's network and in a captive coffeeshop
WLAN.

Enough was enough.

To be fair, though, in my case it's dhclient overwriting my resolv.conf
at boot. And it's supposed to do it (mobile laptop).

[...]

> sudo chmod +i /etc/resolv.conf
> So nothing can scribble over it.

This is a trick I use often to answer the question "who is scribbling
over XXX?". Set immutable and see 'em complain in the logs :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgS/pYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbpuwCeL32zGFNW9J39BD1jEmUglP4I
i+EAn1whRMAMR7q5wWDsEBO5gWF48ceQ
=kfEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Mart van de Wege
In reply to this post by Glenn English-5
Glenn English <[hidden email]> writes:

> Does anyone know how to get rid of resolvconf?
>
> I'm putting a server together, and resovlconf keeps wiping my
> /etc/resolv.conf file and replacing the nameserver IP with "# Created
> by resolvconf" (approx). No nameserver, no anything.
>
> I removed it with Aptitude, and the file started talking about being
> built with dhcpd. Nameserver still wiped, and Aptitude says there's no
> package called dhcpd.

Have you tried 'apt-cache search dhcpd'?

And if you are installing a server, why didn't you pick manual (static)
configuration during the install?

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Gene Heskett-4
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Friday 28 October 2016 03:30:30 [hidden email] wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:59:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 October 2016 21:03:21 Glenn English wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager,
> > nuke that puppy with extreme prejudice.
>
> I did that ~7 years ago. This was the day I plugged my laptop into the
> Ethernet at a customer's site and NM went "Oh, shiny, a wlan!" and
> *poof* I was out of the customer's network and in a captive coffeeshop
> WLAN.
>
> Enough was enough.
>
> To be fair, though, in my case it's dhclient overwriting my
> resolv.conf at boot. And it's supposed to do it (mobile laptop).
>
> [...]
>
> > sudo chmod +i /etc/resolv.conf
> > So nothing can scribble over it.
>
> This is a trick I use often to answer the question "who is scribbling
> over XXX?". Set immutable and see 'em complain in the logs :-)

In my case, n-m was denied that pleasure, and had the great good sense to
just STHU.  I could see it bouncing around in the htop output as it
struggled, but no logs were spammed and my network worked 100%. ISTR
dhcpd wasn't even installed. This was then a trio of ubu 6-04 lts
installs 10 years ago. Now there are 5 wheezy installs here, soon to be
6 I think. I am expecting a raspi-3 Saturday.

This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.  
Now all the dependencies are gone, and it is removeable, so I thank
$DIETY at every install around the coyote.den.  And my local network
Just Works. Any of them has full, unrestricted access to ALL them
innertubes. Whats not to love? :)

> regards
> -- tomás


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Lisi Reisz
On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.

...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)  

 I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which for years
I did automatically at installation time.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Brian
On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.
>
> ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)  
>
>  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which for years
> I did automatically at installation time.

On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection from
ten years ago.

--
Brian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

tomas@tuxteam.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.
> >
> > ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)  
> >
> >  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which for years
> > I did automatically at installation time.
>
> On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection from
> ten years ago.

Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.

Whatever floats your boat.

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgTXFcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaVfwCcDgespAEUDWj7kI/82qfgXqic
BqAAnjvFjRitNiOSQK7AwtV+jD4Uhdsf
=PJEo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Brian
On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.
> > >
> > > ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)  
> > >
> > >  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which for years
> > > I did automatically at installation time.
> >
> > On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> > or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> > connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> > likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection from
> > ten years ago.
>
> Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
>
> Whatever floats your boat.

This is not a quote from a private mail:

 > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
 > that puppy with extreme prejudice.

--
Brian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

tomas@tuxteam.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:15:36PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

[...]

> > Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> > the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
> >
> > Whatever floats your boat.
>
> This is not a quote from a private mail:
>
>  > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
>  > that puppy with extreme prejudice.

Ho hum. I clearly saw a tongue in cheek somewhere. Richard?

:-P

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgTZDkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb5owCeIxGfxdzOZFUPBzJIs5t4VO0I
IBgAnime0m4Gw5PDU7McoWZX+x0eqpZ4
=THkf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Brian
On Friday 28 October 2016 15:15:36 Brian wrote:

> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)
> > > >
> > > >  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which
> > > > for years I did automatically at installation time.
> > >
> > > On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> > > or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> > > connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> > > likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection
> > > from ten years ago.
> >
> > Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> > the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
> >
> > Whatever floats your boat.
>
> This is not a quote from a private mail:
>  > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
>  > that puppy with extreme prejudice.

It is not a quote from a private mail, but you have taken it out of context.  
It was advice on list to an individual and solved that individual's problem.  
It might well solve the problem of anyone else in the same position as the
OP.  My comment was not advice to anyone, merely pointing out that if you
happen to want to remove N-M, it is easy in Debian and does not require
removing half the system, (another quote).

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Glenn English-5
On Friday 28 October 2016 04:16:14 Glenn English wrote:

> > On Oct 27, 2016, at 8:39 PM, Cindy-Sue Causey <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > BUT... Based on wandering through those pages, it looks like maybe
> > some searches related to "how do I add a dns server" (without quotes)
> > might land something. One thing I saw that sounded good *to me* was a
> > reference about declaring DNS nameserver information in
> > /etc/network/interfaces. If yours is/are staying the same, it sounds
> > like a possible solution.
>
> No, they aren't staying the same. That's my problem.
>
> But adding the nameserver to the interface configuration sounds like yet
> another good idea. I'll try that. Might bewilder resolvconf a lot.
>
> But Gene's idea of "nuking that puppy" has a nice sound to it.

Sorry, I thought that you had solved this bit.  Mea culpa.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

David Wright-3
In reply to this post by Brian
On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 15:15:36 (+0100), Brian wrote:

> On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with it.
> > > >
> > > > ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)  
> > > >
> > > >  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which for years
> > > > I did automatically at installation time.
> > >
> > > On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> > > or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> > > connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> > > likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection from
> > > ten years ago.
> >
> > Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> > the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
> >
> > Whatever floats your boat.
>
> This is not a quote from a private mail:
>
>  > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
>  > that puppy with extreme prejudice.

And, tomas, don't overlook potential factoids such as these:

"Now this of course isn't going to work if you are carrying a lappy
and expecting to tap the wifi at any Starbucks you pull into.  Then
you are truly at the mercy of network-mangler, which might work but
usually doesn't."

and

"I have indeed used wicd, 3 or 4 times, []. But the last time I tried
it on a ubu 10-04 lts install, it had apparently been re-written, and
totally emasculated."

Cheers,
David.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolvconf troubles

Brian
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 15:48:27 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Friday 28 October 2016 15:15:36 Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 16:10:31 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 14:07:39 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 28 October 2016 10:19:16 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > This was back in the day when removing it took half the system with
> > > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...  and Gene was using Ubuntu??? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >  I have never, over many years, had any trouble removing N-M, which
> > > > > for years I did automatically at installation time.
> > > >
> > > > On the whole I would never argue about what a user chose to have on his
> > > > or her machine for networking. My own preference is for ifupdown or
> > > > connman, However, the many thousands of happy users of N-M are highly
> > > > likely to ignore advice to remove it based on some dim recollection
> > > > from ten years ago.
> > >
> > > Hm. I didn't take any of the mails in this thread as advising any of
> > > the "many thousands of happy users of N-M" to remove anything.
> > >
> > > Whatever floats your boat.
> >
> > This is not a quote from a private mail:
> >  > At high risk of starting another flame war about network-manager, nuke
> >  > that puppy with extreme prejudice.
>
> It is not a quote from a private mail, but you have taken it out of context.  

That's the nature of quoting. And it was the first item in the mail (the
OP never mentioned N-M) so it sets the tone for the remainder of it.

> It was advice on list to an individual and solved that individual's problem.

The OP was not seeking advice on N-M, was he? Leaving out references to
N-M (and not mis-naming it) would not have detracted from the usefulness
of the post.

> It might well solve the problem of anyone else in the same position as the
> OP.  My comment was not advice to anyone, merely pointing out that if you
> happen to want to remove N-M, it is easy in Debian and does not require
> removing half the system, (another quote).

That is useful to know.

--
Brian.

12