Re: Criterion of a good computer system; was Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-11 Thread Russell Coker
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote: ... not all that complexity has to be exposed by default. Yes, needless complexity in an algorithm reduces efficiency in execution. Needless complexity in an interface reduces efficiency in use.

Criterion of a good computer system; was Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-10 Thread peasthope
* From: Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk * Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:59:47 +0100 For most people, a computer is just a tool. You've hit the nail on the head. A personal computer system should be an efficient tool. ... not all that complexity has to be exposed by default. Yes,

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-06 Thread Vincent Lefevre
Hi, On 2011-04-05 20:37:39 +0300, Andrew O. Shadoura wrote: Hello, On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:31:40 +0200 Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote: [About the general problem of documentation] The problem is to find the correct tools and the correct documentation. For instance, imagine

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-06 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2011-04-06 07:24:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: There are several hacks to do that (like guessnet or laptop-net), but I don’t think this can work correctly in the general case with IPv4. FYI, I had used laptop-net in the past, but it has been removed from Debian:

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-06 Thread Jon Dowland
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:11:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2011-04-06 07:24:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: There are several hacks to do that (like guessnet or laptop-net), but I don’t think this can work correctly in the general case with IPv4. FYI, I had used laptop-net in

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-06 Thread Andrew O. Shadoura
Hello, On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:40:43 +0200 Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote: That's not sufficient, because if a DHCP client is still running (e.g. because the previous configuration used DHCP), one needs to kill it before using a fixed IP address (in eth-home). If you do `ifdown`,

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-06 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2011-04-06 18:26:45 +0300, Andrew O. Shadoura wrote: If you do `ifdown`, either manually or by unplugging the cable, the problem doesn't appear to exist. Calling ifupdown may be inserted into the suspend/resume scripts. I wonder why this isn't done by default. -- Vincent Lefèvre

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [110404 14:05]: It seems to be a common belief between some developers that users should have to read dozens of pages of documentation before attempting to do anything. You mix two things up here: Almost noone demands a system that is only configurable after

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Brett Parker
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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Stanislav Maslovski | 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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Rens Houben
In other news for Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:15:55AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link has been seen typing: But what many people[1] want is that you can make it work if you read some dozen pages of documentation. Personally, what I want is a setup that does not drop all active network interfaces during a

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:10:47AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Stanislav Maslovski | 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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 12:09:42PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:10:47AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Stanislav Maslovski | AFAICT, the main concerns with the current ifupdown-based installation | process is that its suport of wireless networks is very

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-05 Thread Ben Armstrong
On 04/05/2011 05:21 AM, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 12:09:42PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:10:47AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Stanislav Maslovski d-i doesn't use ifupdown, it uses netcfg. Hm, okay, I was pretty sure J.M. at some

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2011-04-04 17:31:18 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:35:10PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: It seems to be a common belief between some developers that users should have to read dozens of pages of documentation before attempting to do anything. I’m happy

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:31:40PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2011-04-04 17:31:18 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:35:10PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: It seems to be a common belief between some developers that users should have to read dozens of pages

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Andrew O. Shadoura
Hello, On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:31:40 +0200 Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote: [About the general problem of documentation] The problem is to find the correct tools and the correct documentation. For instance, imagine the average user who wants for Ethernet (eth0), to do the following

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Philipp Kern
On 2011-04-05, Andrew O. Shadoura bugzi...@tut.by wrote: Of course, man guessnet. Just few lines. Last time I looked guessnet was orphaned, though. Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 05.04.2011, 17:48 + schrieb Philipp Kern: On 2011-04-05, Andrew O. Shadoura bugzi...@tut.by wrote: Of course, man guessnet. Just few lines. Last time I looked guessnet was orphaned, though. but still very useful and allowing me to have a great network setup that,

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include hallo.h * Kelly Clowers [Mon, Apr 04 2011, 02:06:01PM]: On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 07:29, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote: I don't consider myself 'stupid user', but I haven't yet been able to put my laptop on wpa network without the use of network manager. I never did get nm or

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-05 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 05 avril 2011 à 14:31 +0200, Vincent Lefevre a écrit : For instance, imagine the average user who wants for Ethernet (eth0), to do the following automatically (for a laptop): 1. use some fixed IP address if there's some peer 192.168.0.1 with some given MAC address; There are

Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:00:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time has no value. I am happily using network manager on my laptop, because unlike ifconfig it's easy to

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 11:55 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit : Well, actually configuring a wireless network with wpa_supplicant and ifupdown is not hard at all and does not require too much time, _if_ a user has developed a good habbit of reading documentation first. It seems to be a

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Dmitry E. Oboukhov
Well, actually configuring a wireless network with wpa_supplicant and ifupdown is not hard at all and does not require too much time, _if_ a user has developed a good habbit of reading documentation first. JM It seems to be a common belief between some developers that users should JM have to

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 16:19 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov a écrit : User MUST study each OS he uses. No, he must not. The OS must adapt to the user’s needs, not the opposite. If he doesn't want he will be forced to pay the other people who will tune his (user's) system. A lot of users

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Lars Wirzenius
On ma, 2011-04-04 at 16:19 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: 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 dispute your assertion that our users must study the operating system we build for them. I not only

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Dmitry E. Oboukhov
User MUST study each OS he uses. JM No, he must not. The OS must adapt to the user’s needs, not the JM opposite. Create OS that can even be used by stupid and only stupid will use that. If he doesn't want he will be forced to pay the other people who will tune his (user's) system. JM A lot

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Ben Armstrong
On 04/04/2011 10:06 AM, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: There is only one thing that can be used without reading a manual. It is a breast. All the other devices (and things, substances, etc) required to be studied. While this paraphrase of a familiar quote may be applicable when taken in context (in

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:35:10PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 11:55 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit : Well, actually configuring a wireless network with wpa_supplicant and ifupdown is not hard at all and does not require too much time, _if_ a user has

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Ben Armstrong
On 04/04/2011 10:31 AM, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: I do not think that reading documentation before trying to achieve something is that elitist. And in the case of wpa_supplicant, it is definitely not dozens of pages. Basically, it is just man interfaces man wpa_supplicant.conf zless

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 10:39 -0300, Ben Armstrong a écrit : But the average laptop user really does have a hard time with the status quo. Something needs to change in the next release. I think squeeze already does a lot better, but there is still work to do, especially with the installation

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Ben Armstrong
On 04/04/2011 11:03 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: I think squeeze already does a lot better, but there is still work to do, especially with the installation process. On my personal wishlist for wheezy is d-i actually calling NM behind the scenes to configure the network, instead of ifupdown.

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Sune Vuorela
I do not think that reading documentation before trying to achieve something is that elitist. And in the case of wpa_supplicant, it is definitely not dozens of pages. Basically, it is just man interfaces man wpa_supplicant.conf zless /usr/share/doc/wpasupplicant/README.Debian.gz I don't

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:33:31PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 10:39 -0300, Ben Armstrong a écrit : But the average laptop user really does have a hard time with the status quo. Something needs to change in the next release. I think squeeze already does a lot

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:19:30PM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: Well, actually configuring a wireless network with wpa_supplicant and ifupdown is not hard at all and does not require too much time, _if_ a user has developed a good habbit of reading documentation first. JM It seems to

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Timo Juhani Lindfors
Ben Armstrong sy...@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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stefan Lippers-Hollmann
Hi On Monday 04 April 2011, Sune Vuorela wrote: I do not think that reading documentation before trying to achieve something is that elitist. And in the case of wpa_supplicant, it is definitely not dozens of pages. Basically, it is just man interfaces man wpa_supplicant.conf zless

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:06:28PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 16:19 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov a écrit : User MUST study each OS he uses. No, he must not. The OS must adapt to the user’s needs, not the opposite. If he doesn't want he will be forced to pay

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Jon Dowland
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:52:05PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: Sould not there be an option to select between the old network configuration and NM? Nowhere have I seen it argued that NM will be the *only* networking solution for Debian going forward, merely the *default* one. In other

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:33:31PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 04 avril 2011 à 10:39 -0300, Ben Armstrong a écrit : But the average laptop user really does have a hard time with the status quo. Something needs to change in the next release. I think squeeze already does a lot

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:35:19PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:52:05PM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: Sould not there be an option to select between the old network configuration and NM? Nowhere have I seen it argued that NM will be the *only* networking

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Fernando Lemos
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.il wrote: [...] It does have system-global config file. But the settings are not expected to be there. By default the settings are expected to be in the user directory (has this changed since 0.8?). So I won't easily find it when

Nipples (was Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!)

2011-04-04 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Ben Armstrong (followup to -curiosa, please) [...] | That stuff, unlike the nipple, is all learned. From talking with friends of mine who have babies, that skill is also very much learned. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Romain Beauxis
2011/4/4 Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com: I am not happy that network manager bypasses ifconfig to do this; I would have much preferred a daemon that could properly integrate with the existing infrastructure we had. Exactly. There is ifplugd that implements some of the

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Dmitry E. Oboukhov un...@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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:57:10PM -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote: 2011/4/4 Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com: I am not happy that network manager bypasses ifconfig to do this; I would have much preferred a daemon that could properly integrate with the existing infrastructure

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Michelle Konzack
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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
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.

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Kelly Clowers
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 07:29, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote: I do not think that reading documentation before trying to achieve something is that elitist. And in the case of wpa_supplicant, it is definitely not dozens of pages. Basically, it is just man interfaces man

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann s@gmx.de wrote: [...] Besides not using netlink internally, ifupdown's biggest drawback in my personal opinion is not reacting dynamically to changing connection methods, like switching from wlan0 to eth0, if an ethernet cable gets

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Fernando Lemos
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre mathieu...@gmail.com wrote: [...] This said, I don't think NM can be the magic bullet to fix everything. Even RedHat while shipping NetworkManager on servers last I checked, still relies on their simpler command-line setup for interfaces.

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Ian Jackson
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

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Stanislav Maslovski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:39:23PM -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre mathieu...@gmail.com wrote: [...] This said, I don't think NM can be the magic bullet to fix everything. Even RedHat while shipping NetworkManager on servers last I

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes! (was: network-manager as default? No!)

2011-04-04 Thread Fernando Lemos
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Stanislav Maslovski stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Also note that there are NM plugins that enable NM to understand /etc/network/interfaces and the Fedora/RHEL counterparts. This means that if a server has NM enabled and an administrator wants to

Re: Back to technical discussion? Yes!

2011-04-04 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] 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