Comment 9 for bug 205169

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:05AM -0000, Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote:
> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 191889 ***
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191889
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Alexander Sack <email address hidden> wrote:
> > No, but this issue is known to network manager devs and maybe we will
> > have a better heurisitic in network manager.
>
> Good, because there are a lot of complex setups for Linux networking,
> and I am 100% sure that NetworkManager doesn't handle them all. I
> know you guys are trying your best to work on it, and we all
> appreciate it, but I just regret the design decision to utilize NM api
> to check networking status in all these applications. It smacks of
> M$-like Desktop "integration". Linux users enjoy the freedom to
> tinker...

Yes, apps have to better understand what the online offline state
means in network manager to provide a good user experience.

As i commented in the firefox upstream bug, the states primary purpose
is to allow apps to fast-fail without probing the network.

So in the end its ok to have false online indication, while its much
more devastating to have false offline indication.

NetworkManager has implement a heuristic that follows the "no false
offline" indication approach and then it will be fine :). At least for
IP driven networks, that should be possible imo.

 - Alexander