Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
On 2020-03-27 03:12, David Wright wrote: I'm still quite happy to run with their choices. I'm also very happy to use this free software that works. for example I used to use fetchmail and procmail now I use getmail and dovecot-deliver. I have no idea how dovecot does the mail transport but I'm sure I could find out, same way I could probably find out about systemd even though this old fart moans about things getting more complicated. mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
On Thu 26 Mar 2020 at 08:03:38 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> Well I do not know o use systemd-networkd, so your assumption is not
> correct. It was meant and in the context of some kind of GUI be it CLI or X
OK, so I completely misinterpreted what the "it" referred to in
your response to Andrei ("I find it amazing how *it* works").
We'd been talking about the increasing "desires" of systemd,
including "[to] manage network interfaces", ie systemd-networkd,
which was specifically mentioned by Andrei. NetworkManager had
only cropped up in a list of examples of other software, so
I wasn't aware we were changing subject.
That's cleared that up.
> > I don't want a desktop. In fact, wicd doesn't even need X, as it can
> > run quite happily on a VC to configure a new AP.
> >
> > When I return to somewhere I have been before, wicd (the daemon)
> > usually connects before I have typed my passphrase to unlock /home.
> > (That assumes I'm logging in.)
>
> This is good that you have something useful and you can work with it. Please
> do not impose to others. Everybody is free to use whatever suits the needs
> the best.
Where do you get the idea that I'm imposing anything on anyone?
I just wrote what I don't use (system-networkd) and what I do
(wicd), and gave my reason, something that people often overlook
when they suggest software. (Look at the thread "how to keep 2 PCs
partially in sync" for example.)
> May be 10y ago I've used wicd several time. In my world all GTK is ... well
> crap. I do not know why people want to write something like this in C, but
> on the other hand if it works - it works.
I've never used wicd-gtk so, as well as not talking about NetworkManager,
I'm not talking about GTK, nor about what is or isn't written in C.
I use wicd-curses, a TUI that runs, as I wrote, on VCs as well as X.
I have no idea what language(s) wicd and curses are written in, and
that played no part in my decision of what to use.
> Anyway this is my personal opinion. If you ask Torvald about C++ he has the
> same opinion as me about C.
> It is good that there are different opinions
Sure, but I wonder why you interpret my posts as complaints, or as
impositions on other people. Especially in a thread about systemd,
which always seems to bring out the worst in some people. I'm neutral
on systemd, and use it because Debian does. Having used Debian since
its first release, I'm still quite happy to run with their choices.
Cheers,
David.
Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
I can't help you (don't use WiFi / Network Manager / etc. very often), but I applaud you for putting the effort into trying to clarify the discussion! (No new content below this line.) On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:02:17 PM David Wright wrote: > On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 20:18:29 (+), Liam O'Toole wrote: > > For what it's worth, Network Manager doesn't need a GUI either. Tools > > such as nmcli and nmtui allow you to configure and control network > > connections from the command line. > > There seems to be some confusion in this subthread. Going back a little: > > On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 12:14:57 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations. > > On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 14:49:03 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > > well - for static IP you don't need systemd, but it is a relief for > > the dynamic stuff - i.e. wireless and cabled networks that change. I > > find it amazing how it works not that I say I am starting to > > love systemd :) […] > > On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 10:44:54 (-0500), David Wright wrote: > > I looked at what documentation I could find, but carried on using > > > > wicd-curses, and the arch wiki seems to agree with what I found: > >"systemd-networkd does not have a proper interactive management > > > > interface neither via command-line nor graphical". > > > > The interface is what matters when you're travelling with a laptop. > > So this is a conversation about systemd-networkd, not NetworkManager, > in a thread that's about systemd, not Gnome or any other desktop/DE. > > I think the next message in the subthread led to others' confusion, > so I'm going to add two annotations to the quote (which should clarify > what I understand it to mean), and then repeat the reply I gave before: > > On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 20:34:24 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > > David Wright wrote: > > > I looked at what documentation I could find, but carried on using > > > wicd-curses, and the arch wiki seems to agree with what I found: > > > > > > "systemd-networkd does not have a proper interactive management > > > interface neither via command-line nor graphical". > > > > > > The interface is what matters when you're travelling with a laptop. > > > > But the purpose of systemd is not to give you an interface. This is > > provided > > ↑↑↑ Here, I presume the word intended is > "systemd-networkd". ↓↓↓ > > > by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management - > > AFAIK it works via dbus. > >Here, I presume that the "network manager" that > systemd ↓is talking to (via dbus) is systemd-networkd, > ↓and *not* NetworkManager (aka network-manager). > ↓ >↓↓↓ > > > systemd <-> dbus <-> network-manager > > > > network-manager-interface > > > > This is my understanding how it works or should work. > > I don't want a desktop. In fact, wicd doesn't even need X, as it can > run quite happily on a VC to configure a new AP. > > When I return to somewhere I have been before, wicd (the daemon) > usually connects before I have typed my passphrase to unlock /home. > (That assumes I'm logging in.) > > Cheers, > David.
Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
On Wed, 25 Mar, 2020 at 21:02:17 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 20:18:29 (+), Liam O'Toole wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, Network Manager doesn't need a GUI either. Tools > > such as nmcli and nmtui allow you to configure and control network > > connections from the command line. > > There seems to be some confusion in this subthread. Going back a little: [...] My remark was simply a response to yours about wicd not requiring X. I hope it hasn't added to the confusion.
Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
David Wright wrote: >> But the purpose of systemd is not to give you an interface. This is >> provided > > ↑↑↑ Here, I presume the word intended is "systemd-networkd". > ↓↓↓ >> by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management - >> AFAIK it works via dbus. > Well I do not know o use systemd-networkd, so your assumption is not correct. It was meant and in the context of some kind of GUI be it CLI or X > Here, I presume that the "network manager" that systemd > ↓ is talking to (via dbus) is systemd-networkd, > ↓ and *not* NetworkManager (aka network-manager). > ↓ > ↓↓↓ >> systemd <-> dbus <-> network-manager >> | >> network-manager-interface >> May be but again I do not know systemd-networkd. If we go back you would see it was exactly about the combination of systemd and network-manager >> This is my understanding how it works or should work. >> > > I don't want a desktop. In fact, wicd doesn't even need X, as it can > run quite happily on a VC to configure a new AP. > > When I return to somewhere I have been before, wicd (the daemon) > usually connects before I have typed my passphrase to unlock /home. > (That assumes I'm logging in.) > This is good that you have something useful and you can work with it. Please do not impose to others. Everybody is free to use whatever suits the needs the best. May be 10y ago I've used wicd several time. In my world all GTK is ... well crap. I do not know why people want to write something like this in C, but on the other hand if it works - it works. Anyway this is my personal opinion. If you ask Torvald about C++ he has the same opinion as me about C. It is good that there are different opinions regards
Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 20:18:29 (+), Liam O'Toole wrote: > > For what it's worth, Network Manager doesn't need a GUI either. Tools > such as nmcli and nmtui allow you to configure and control network > connections from the command line. There seems to be some confusion in this subthread. Going back a little: On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 12:14:57 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote: > systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations. On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 14:49:03 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > well - for static IP you don't need systemd, but it is a relief for the > dynamic stuff - i.e. wireless and cabled networks that change. > I find it amazing how it works not that I say I am starting to love systemd :) > […] On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 10:44:54 (-0500), David Wright wrote: > I looked at what documentation I could find, but carried on using > wicd-curses, and the arch wiki seems to agree with what I found: >"systemd-networkd does not have a proper interactive management > interface neither via command-line nor graphical". > The interface is what matters when you're travelling with a laptop. So this is a conversation about systemd-networkd, not NetworkManager, in a thread that's about systemd, not Gnome or any other desktop/DE. I think the next message in the subthread led to others' confusion, so I'm going to add two annotations to the quote (which should clarify what I understand it to mean), and then repeat the reply I gave before: On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 20:34:24 (+0100), deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > I looked at what documentation I could find, but carried on using > > wicd-curses, and the arch wiki seems to agree with what I found: > > > > "systemd-networkd does not have a proper interactive management > > interface neither via command-line nor graphical". > > > > The interface is what matters when you're travelling with a laptop. > > But the purpose of systemd is not to give you an interface. This is provided ↑↑↑ Here, I presume the word intended is "systemd-networkd". ↓↓↓ > by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management - > AFAIK it works via dbus. Here, I presume that the "network manager" that systemd ↓is talking to (via dbus) is systemd-networkd, ↓and *not* NetworkManager (aka network-manager). ↓ ↓↓↓ > systemd <-> dbus <-> network-manager > | > network-manager-interface > > This is my understanding how it works or should work. > I don't want a desktop. In fact, wicd doesn't even need X, as it can run quite happily on a VC to configure a new AP. When I return to somewhere I have been before, wicd (the daemon) usually connects before I have typed my passphrase to unlock /home. (That assumes I'm logging in.) Cheers, David.
