On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 14:15 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote: > On 9/28/06, Pat Suwalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Derek Broughton wrote: > > > You have a different definition of "apparent" than I do :-( > > > > It literally shows everything it does, is what "apparent" means to me. > > Dumping everything it does, doesn't make a program's actions > _apparent_. It leads to confusion without enlightenment. > > > wpa_supplicant handles unencrypted networks too. If NetworkManager > > didn't use it, it would have to use some other interface to connect to > > open networks. This way, everything is handled the same way, leaving > > less chance for error. > > Except that I actually _get_ data on that network until wpa_supplicant > gets into the act, so it manages to bring up an interface without > wpa_supplicant in the first place. > > > Sounds like scanning is broken on your driver. I know the feeling. > > Except that it was never a problem with early versions of network > manager - it _could be the driver, as it's just using the in-kernel
Because those earlier versions weren't using wpa_supplicant, and therefore couldn't do any sort of WPA at all. If the scan breaks your current association, there is something wrong with your wireless driver. No driver should do that. Dan > ipw2200, and I update kernels regularly, but I doubt it. I used NM > successfully for about a year. I actually think it has developed a > hardware problem, but I can get the interface to work (sometimes) > using manual ifup/ifdown commands and not with NM. _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
