Re: howto ignore rfkill switch
Dan Williams wrote : You've flipped the rfkill switch, thus you do not want to use wifi. With all due respect, you are wrong. If you do actually want to use wifi, there are other, better mechanisms to just kill the card you don't want to use. blacklisting does not qualify as better. Besides blacklisting? rfkill is *not* the mechanism to disable a specific card completely. Yes it is. A hardware switch is great. It is so more intuitive than any software interface, since it just looks like the good old ON/OFF button that everybody understands since they were three years old. By making one single button act on multiple unrelated devices you try to make the machine too clever and leave the fundamental ON/OFF analogy behind. This ON/OFF analogy is so fundamental that most users do not even suspect it is an analogy! They simply think that the button is actually hard-wired to the device. Cool, a hardware button! Finally something simple and reliable to switch off all this complex and buggy software!. In the latest Ubuntu stable, ath5k reliably freezes my laptop; this example could be the most common reason normal people use another wireless interface. To switch off my USB / PCMCIA interface, guess what: I simply use once again its dead-simple, hardware interface: I just plug it out! And sorry but I do not plan to explain to my grand-ma how to blacklist drivers. Cheers, Marc PS Marcel: I read you, and I am glad the kernel plans to push this UI debate out of its scope. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: howto ignore rfkill switch
Marc Herbert wrote: rfkill is *not* the mechanism to disable a specific card completely. Yes it is. A hardware switch is great. It is so more intuitive than any software interface, since it just looks like the good old ON/OFF button that everybody understands since they were three years old. By making one single button act on multiple unrelated devices you try to make the machine too clever and leave the fundamental ON/OFF analogy behind. It might be great if you actually have a hardware switch, a lot of machines do not. My laptop uses Fn-F2 and that disables Wi-Fi and Bluetooth simultaneously but not by cutting the power to them or by toggling an enable line to the radios. It does it by some sort of software mechanism. This ON/OFF analogy is so fundamental that most users do not even suspect it is an analogy! They simply think that the button is actually hard-wired to the device. Cool, a hardware button! Finally something simple and reliable to switch off all this complex and buggy software!. Or Damn! Why the hell can't I switch off my WiFi and leave my Bluetooth active so I can use my mouse? -- Brian ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: howto ignore rfkill switch
Hi Brian, rfkill is *not* the mechanism to disable a specific card completely. Yes it is. A hardware switch is great. It is so more intuitive than any software interface, since it just looks like the good old ON/OFF button that everybody understands since they were three years old. By making one single button act on multiple unrelated devices you try to make the machine too clever and leave the fundamental ON/OFF analogy behind. It might be great if you actually have a hardware switch, a lot of machines do not. My laptop uses Fn-F2 and that disables Wi-Fi and Bluetooth simultaneously but not by cutting the power to them or by toggling an enable line to the radios. It does it by some sort of software mechanism. This ON/OFF analogy is so fundamental that most users do not even suspect it is an analogy! They simply think that the button is actually hard-wired to the device. Cool, a hardware button! Finally something simple and reliable to switch off all this complex and buggy software!. Or Damn! Why the hell can't I switch off my WiFi and leave my Bluetooth active so I can use my mouse? that is actually the fault of the old RFKILL input stuff in the kernel. It was wrong and we will be moving this to userspace. So you can actually toggle between it with visual feedback to the user. Let me repeat, every RFKILL before the 2.6.31 kernel was a complete cluster-fuck, heavily complicated and just plain wrong. Check the linux-wireless mailing list archive if you have a day or so. There are quite a few posts about it :) Regards Marcel ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: Network Manager does not find system wide connections
Dan Williams wrote:
You'll want to start looking in the keyfile's
system-settings/plugins/keyfile/plugin.c dir_changed() function. That
function is called whenever inotify sees new files or changes in the
config directory. Does that function get called when the new file
appears there? Since the new keyfile appears at all, I assume that
means the keyfile plugin is loaded (otherwise nothing would get written
to that directory in the first place).
Eventually this code will be triggered in dir_chagned():
/* New */
connection = nm_keyfile_connection_new (name);
if (connection) {
NMConnection *tmp;
NMSettingConnection *s_con;
const char *connection_uuid;
NMKeyfileConnection *found = NULL;
Nope, dir_changed() is not called at all, neither at restart of the
nm-system-settings daemon, nor when a new file appears.
regards
Hadmut
___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
