Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> writes:
> once they manage to make it work, I've *still* seen cafe connections
> fail on my lovingly hand-crafted wpa_cli + wpa_supplicant setup that
> succeed when I reboot to a Squeeze GNOME live image with NM. I to this
> day have not been able to figure out why.
You might have hit the same race condition in one of the shell scripts
as I did:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 84mxk6ghx7.fsf@sauna.l.org">http://lists.debian.org/84mxk6ghx7.fsf@sauna.l.org
04-04-2011, 07:30 PM
Russ Allbery
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
"Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <unera@debian.org> writes:
> JM> It seems to be a common belief between some developers that users should
> JM> have to read dozens of pages of documentation before attempting to do
> JM> anything.
> JM> I’m happy that not all of us share this elitist view of software. I
> JM> thought we were building the Universal Operating System, not the
> JM> Operating System for bearded gurus.
> User MUST study each OS he uses. If he doesn't want he will be forced to
> pay the other people who will tune his (user's) system.
I know lots about Linux, and even I have no desire to study enough
documentation to figure out how to run wpa_supplicant by hand. I've done
it a couple of times and it was horribly painful. I'm much happier
letting wicd handle it for me.
Increasing the amount of stuff that just works is important.
"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by
eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the
habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
Civilisation advances by extending the number of operations we can perform
without thinking about them." -- Alfred North Whitehead
That said, for simple server network configuration patterns, ifupdown just
works. I think a lot of the push-back that's happening in this thread is
that replacing ifupdown for the simple but very common case of having one
statically-configured or DHCP-configured wired Ethernet connection on a
server seems like a really bad idea, since ifupdown just works and is
substantially better than the Red Hat equivalent.
I don't think that many people in that situation will be enthusiastic
about running something as complex as Network Manager on a typical simple
server networking setup. (And usually when the networking gets complex on
a server, it needs to be carefully hand-configured to do the right thing,
and not in a way that Network Manager was designed to do.)
That said, of course for a server build one can just remove Network
Manager and install ifupdown and go on with life. Changing the default
doesn't mean forcing it on everyone. But I think that's much of where the
concern arises.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8739lxstkf.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/8739lxstkf.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
04-04-2011, 07:52 PM
Russ Allbery
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com> writes:
> I considered using wicd some time ago, but gave up after reading
> information from its FAQ:
> http://wicd.sourceforge.net/moinmoin/FAQ
The main advantage of wicd from my perspective is that it's a simple and
straightforward solution for configuring a single wireless interface with
a GUI. If that's not your situation, it's probably not going to be very
rewarding. It happens to fit my situation perfectly.
I would not advocate making it the default network management facility in
Debian without putting significantly more work into it (and I would worry
about losing its current excellent simplicity.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87hbadrdzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87hbadrdzu.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
04-04-2011, 08:03 PM
Michelle Konzack
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
Hello Russ Allbery,
Am 2011-04-04 12:30:24, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> That said, of course for a server build one can just remove Network
> Manager and install ifupdown and go on with life. Changing the default
> doesn't mean forcing it on everyone. But I think that's much of where the
> concern arises.
But there is a problem with it!
If you install a Workstation, you will sit in front of it and if there
ges something going wrong, you can interact.
Installing a server over the network and having NM as default, which can
not handel several NICS at startup and configre it correctly, require an
expensive Remote-Hand to get the system runing again...
What I do not understand is WHY the Debian Project can not do an install
in two steps. I mean installing the bare base using "ifupdown" and if
the user choose the Desktop-Task replace it with NM. I think, someone
which want to install a server HAS the knowledge about System-
Administration and does not need NM in any case.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
--
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ######################
Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux
itsystems@tdnet France EURL itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability)
Owner Michelle Konzack Owner Michelle Konzack
Apt. 917 (homeoffice)
50, rue de Soultz Kinzigstraße 17
67100 Strasbourg/France 77694 Kehl/Germany
Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil
Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
04-04-2011, 08:46 PM
Stanislav Maslovski
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:30:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[skipped]
> "It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by
> eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the
> habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
> Civilisation advances by extending the number of operations we can perform
> without thinking about them." -- Alfred North Whitehead
This turns backward immediately as you face a need to do something
less trivial than that is supported by the ready-to-use tool of your
choice.
> That said, for simple server network configuration patterns, ifupdown just
> works.
Sure. But it also works in complicated configuration patterns that are
not supported by any of the available click-n-go solutions.
[skipped]
> That said, of course for a server build one can just remove Network
> Manager and install ifupdown and go on with life.
Removing NM after a _successful_ installation is not a problem, of
course. But are you sure that, for instance, an unattended network
install will complete successfuly with NM in the background if the
network connection blinks for a moment? Or if the system dbus
service is restarted at a certain stage of installation?
I would expect NM in such situations to begin reconfiguring network
interfaces (or just go crazy) with all possible (and generally
unpredictable) consequences (disclaimer: those are my random guesses).
I very much dislike the idea of making NM the default, but if we
decide to go this way, then there must be an option in the installer
to disable the use of NM altogether in the very early stages of the
installation.
--
Stanislav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404204644.GA3233@kaiba.homelan">http://lists.debian.org/20110404204644.GA3233@kaiba.homelan
04-04-2011, 08:55 PM
Stanislav Maslovski
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:03:12PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> What I do not understand is WHY the Debian Project can not do an install
> in two steps. I mean installing the bare base using "ifupdown" and if
> the user choose the Desktop-Task replace it with NM.
AFAICT, the main concerns with the current ifupdown-based installation
process is that its suport of wireless networks is very limited: only
WEP is supported, and there are problems with lost connections. I am
pretty sure that these problems may be addressed without replacing all
the infrastructure and switching to NM, though.
--
Stanislav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404205554.GA5668@kaiba.homelan">http://lists.debian.org/20110404205554.GA5668@kaiba.homelan
04-04-2011, 11:50 PM
Ian Jackson
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!"):
> That said, for simple server network configuration patterns, ifupdown just
> works. I think a lot of the push-back that's happening in this thread is
> that replacing ifupdown for the simple but very common case of having one
> statically-configured or DHCP-configured wired Ethernet connection on a
> server seems like a really bad idea, since ifupdown just works and is
> substantially better than the Red Hat equivalent.
Precisely.
The only reason we are having this enormous argument is because people
are threatening to take away ifupdown.
I appreciate that ifupdown has both design errors[1] and bugs. But
the solution is not to replace it with network-manager - my opinion of
network-manager cannot be reasonably expressed on this list.
[1] For example, the way it tries to keep its own record of the state
of your interfaces, rather than examining them when needed.
These problems with ifupdown are not in principle impossible to fix;
nor are they necessarily even difficult to quickly bodge so as to keep
it working.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 19866.22828.536391.570855@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/19866.22828.536391.570855@chiark.greenend.org.uk
04-05-2011, 05:34 AM
Tollef Fog Heen
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
]] Kelly Clowers
Hi,
| I never did get nm or wicd to work. Only with ifupdown+wpa_supplicant
| was I able to make WiFi work. This was with an ordinary home router
| with WPA2 PSK and an Atheros PCIe NIC
Without commenting on the whole ifupdown-vs-nm by default issue, I don't
see any bugs filed by you about NM or wicd not working. If people don't
tell the maintainers about bugs in their software they should not be
surprised bugs are not fixes or the software improves slowly. (If you
filed them with another address than your gmail address or you did check
and the bugs were already filed, I apologise and the error is on my end.)
cheers,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87lizp2rd3.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87lizp2rd3.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
04-05-2011, 06:08 AM
Brett Parker
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
On 05 Apr 00:55, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:03:12PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > What I do not understand is WHY the Debian Project can not do an install
> > in two steps. I mean installing the bare base using "ifupdown" and if
> > the user choose the Desktop-Task replace it with NM.
>
> AFAICT, the main concerns with the current ifupdown-based installation
> process is that its suport of wireless networks is very limited: only
> WEP is supported, and there are problems with lost connections. I am
> pretty sure that these problems may be addressed without replacing all
> the infrastructure and switching to NM, though.
It is?! I better tell my /etc/network/interfaces that those wpa keys in
there shouldn't work...
(I use ifupdown on my laptop *lots*, it has *several* wireless
configurations in /etc/network/interfaces, and a magical mapping script
that uses iwlist scan to check where we are... it all "just works"
including the WPA configuration...)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110405060819.GC3840@sommitrealweird.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20110405060819.GC3840@sommitrealweird.co.uk
04-05-2011, 06:59 AM
Stanislav Maslovski
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 07:08:19AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> On 05 Apr 00:55, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:03:12PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > > What I do not understand is WHY the Debian Project can not do an install
> > > in two steps. I mean installing the bare base using "ifupdown" and if
> > > the user choose the Desktop-Task replace it with NM.
> >
> > AFAICT, the main concerns with the current ifupdown-based installation
> > process is that its suport of wireless networks is very limited: only
> > WEP is supported, and there are problems with lost connections. I am
> > pretty sure that these problems may be addressed without replacing all
> > the infrastructure and switching to NM, though.
>
> It is?! I better tell my /etc/network/interfaces that those wpa keys in
> there shouldn't work...
Well, I guess you did not read the text you replied to. That was about
the problems with Debian installer, not with ifupdown-based setups in
general. As you may have noticed, I have been trying to convince
people that ifupdown and wpa may work perfectly when properly
configured since yesterday. Therefore I believe that the known
problems with installer can be actually solved without switching to NM.
> (I use ifupdown on my laptop *lots*, it has *several* wireless
> configurations in /etc/network/interfaces, and a magical mapping script
> that uses iwlist scan to check where we are... it all "just works"
> including the WPA configuration...)
So do I, and it just works.
--
Stanislav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110405065935.GA3684@kaiba.homelan">http://lists.debian.org/20110405065935.GA3684@kaiba.homelan
Back to technical discussion? Yes!
