Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:45:21 +0100 Johan Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do keep in mind that the RF kill switch will kill _all_ RF devices on > modern laptops including BT. It might be a case where a user wants to > disable wireless network support but keep BT active. Also, some people don't use wifi devices that their laptop was designed for, i.e. people who are using Atheros minipci cards instead of Intel Centrino's native ones. In many cases after such a change it's not possible anymore to use RF kill switch to kill internal wifi card. -- Regards ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Hi ~ Matthew Saltzman wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, David Zeuthen wrote: Clearly NM has the brains to do this itself and perhaps it should, at least when running battery. That's part of the point why we're making NM the single entity that controls networking. Sure, this leaves all the uhm people who like to configure their system to the last bit out in the cold but as pointed out repeatedly their are not the main audience for NM [1]. As a general rule of thumbwWe should never invent options when we can do the right thing automatically. Vote no on the "disable networking" proposition. Presumably, it would power down wireless when connected by wire? Are there other cases where you might want both? There are certainly cases where you would want neither, even when in range of a WAP. And of course, if I don't have wire, but I'm running on battery, I may want wireless anyway. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining a state diagram that doesn't have at least one human-activated switch in it. If I remember correctly we made the decision to do scans every so often to keep the access point list updated. This helps the case where you disconnect and want to be on wireless right away after that. With out the scanning it would take a while to scan for an available AP and then connect to it. There is a 'low power scanning' for when you're on battery and should conserve power in as many ways as possible for NM. I'm not sure if g-p-m has power management modes or policies, maybe David can answer that. But if you're really looking to squeeze the most battery life out of your system then presumably you'd use a "Maximize Battery Life" policy which NetworkManager would react to and attempt to conserve as much power as it could in that case. Cheers, ~ Bryan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > >> 4a) I'm on battery and I have a wired connection available. In the >> interest of conserving every bit of battery power, I turn my screen >> brightness way down, park my hard drive, and turn off my wireless >> transmitter. > > Note that if you are going to be doing things such as parking your > drive's head, you could always remove your wireless card's module, too. > NM need not expose the UI knob. Nah, I've got laptop tools installed that key off the AC power ACPI even and spin down the hard drive for me.. It's not manual at all. But I DEFINITELY don't want the 802.11 turned off from under me when I pull out the power cable. I want that in the applet. > Robert Love -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:18 +0100, Nikolaus Filus wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:12, Robert Love wrote: >> > But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all >> > wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision >> > is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to >> > turn off everything, or both. >> >> What is this "enable/disable wireless" good for, when most notebooks >> should either have a physical or software radio switch. So KISS, as there >> is another tool for solving this. > > This is true, and I was just going to bring this up. Practical > considerations though, make this less than ideal. First, not all > laptops have an RF kill switch. Second, there isn't a good facility to > notify userspace that the RF has been killed at all. So ideally we > would have NetworkManager listen to the drivers (or netlink, or > whatever) such that when the RF kill switch has been activated, we > deactivate the device. Need to remember this when people start > designing the new netlink replacement for WEXT. FTR, neither of my laptops have an 802.11 RF kill switch. So I need NM (or some other software that I run by hand, but I'd prefer it to be NM) to do it for me. > Dan -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, David Zeuthen wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote: 4a) I'm on battery and I have a wired connection available. In the interest of conserving every bit of battery power, I turn my screen brightness way down, gnome-power-manager does this already if your hardware supports it. park my hard drive, g-p-m calls SetLowPower(TRUE) on HAL and your distro power management scripts will be invoked to do this. Have to look into this. Thanks for the tip. and turn off my wireless transmitter. Clearly NM has the brains to do this itself and perhaps it should, at least when running battery. That's part of the point why we're making NM the single entity that controls networking. Sure, this leaves all the uhm people who like to configure their system to the last bit out in the cold but as pointed out repeatedly their are not the main audience for NM [1]. As a general rule of thumbwWe should never invent options when we can do the right thing automatically. Vote no on the "disable networking" proposition. Presumably, it would power down wireless when connected by wire? Are there other cases where you might want both? There are certainly cases where you would want neither, even when in range of a WAP. And of course, if I don't have wire, but I'm running on battery, I may want wireless anyway. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining a state diagram that doesn't have at least one human-activated switch in it. David [1] : though if it don't cost much in terms of code / options / complexity let's make it work for the these people too -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:25 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > > and turn off my wireless > > transmitter. > > Clearly NM has the brains to do this itself and perhaps it should, at > least when running battery. That's part of the point why we're making NM > the single entity that controls networking. Sure, this leaves all the > uhm people who like to configure their system to the last bit out in the > cold but as pointed out repeatedly their are not the main audience for > NM [1]. > > As a general rule of thumbwWe should never invent options when we can do > the right thing automatically. Vote no on the "disable networking" > proposition. > > David > > [1] : though if it don't cost much in terms of code / options / > complexity let's make it work for the these people too Adam Belay (CC'ed, but might not be on this list) has been working on per-device power management so we can do a lot better in this category. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 09:29 -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On SUSE, you set NM_CONTROLLED=no in the network interface's config file > and NM will not handle it. Personally, I don't know why you would ever > want NM to not handle an interface ;-) but people asked. Because you're building an AP that you also use as a workstation ;) Which is to say it's a *great* feature for a small business scenario. -- Peter ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > 4a) I'm on battery and I have a wired connection available. In the > interest of conserving every bit of battery power, I turn my screen > brightness way down, gnome-power-manager does this already if your hardware supports it. > park my hard drive, g-p-m calls SetLowPower(TRUE) on HAL and your distro power management scripts will be invoked to do this. > and turn off my wireless > transmitter. Clearly NM has the brains to do this itself and perhaps it should, at least when running battery. That's part of the point why we're making NM the single entity that controls networking. Sure, this leaves all the uhm people who like to configure their system to the last bit out in the cold but as pointed out repeatedly their are not the main audience for NM [1]. As a general rule of thumbwWe should never invent options when we can do the right thing automatically. Vote no on the "disable networking" proposition. David [1] : though if it don't cost much in terms of code / options / complexity let's make it work for the these people too ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 08:21 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > 4a) I'm on battery and I have a wired connection available. In the > interest of conserving every bit of battery power, I turn my screen > brightness way down, park my hard drive, and turn off my wireless > transmitter. Note that if you are going to be doing things such as parking your drive's head, you could always remove your wireless card's module, too. NM need not expose the UI knob. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:11 -0400, Ian Campbell wrote: > Is there a chance of getting the option to selectively disable > interfaces? ie I have two wireless cards and only want one of them used, > for some reason I want to disable my wired card, but not wireless, > whatever. > > .. or was that a design decision? It seems like something that should > be there. I added this functionality to NM but the trigger-points are in the distribution-specific code. On SUSE, you set NM_CONTROLLED=no in the network interface's config file and NM will not handle it. Personally, I don't know why you would ever want NM to not handle an interface ;-) but people asked. It would be trivial to add the functionality to any other distribution, too. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Dan Williams wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:18 +0100, Nikolaus Filus wrote: Hi, On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:12, Robert Love wrote: But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to turn off everything, or both. What is this "enable/disable wireless" good for, when most notebooks should either have a physical or software radio switch. So KISS, as there is another tool for solving this. This is true, and I was just going to bring this up. Practical considerations though, make this less than ideal. First, not all laptops have an RF kill switch. Second, there isn't a good facility to notify userspace that the RF has been killed at all. So ideally we would have NetworkManager listen to the drivers (or netlink, or whatever) such that when the RF kill switch has been activated, we deactivate the device. Need to remember this when people start designing the new netlink replacement for WEXT. Dan (1) My notbook has no accessible hardware control of the built-in wireless card. (2) NM is my laptop's "network manager". If I wanted to look for a software button that would turn off my wireless card, that's the first place I would look. -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Antony J Mee wrote: I also find it difficult to make a strong argument for the wireless only enable. I imagine it should be possible to independently disable all interfaces (future additions too), eg. auto-dialed PPP/GPRS connections or some such ie. it may need working into a more general framework at a later date, but please at least keep it for now! Let's see if I can dream up some use cases as support. Dan's gonna love these. Perhaps: [...] And one for the road (wait for it Dan... wait for it): 4) I am somekind of long-haired, peace-loving, tree-hugging laptop user (yet somehow don't have a Mac) and would like to use a wired connection but do not wish to add to the electromagnetic radiation that bounces round the room playing with my electrons and those of nearby friends, colleagues, trees and indeed everything (except dark matter?)! 4a) I'm on battery and I have a wired connection available. In the interest of conserving every bit of battery power, I turn my screen brightness way down, park my hard drive, and turn off my wireless transmitter. -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 06:50 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:18 +0100, Nikolaus Filus wrote: > What is this "enable/disable wireless" good for, when most notebooks > should either have a physical or software radio switch. So KISS, as there > is another tool for solving this. This is true, and I was just going to bring this up. Practical considerations though, make this less than ideal. First, not all laptops have an RF kill switch. Second, there isn't a good facility to notify userspace that the RF has been killed at all. So ideally we would have NetworkManager listen to the drivers (or netlink, or whatever) such that when the RF kill switch has been activated, we deactivate the device. Need to remember this when people start designing the new netlink replacement for WEXT. (New in this list. Don't know if this has been up for discussion before) Do keep in mind that the RF kill switch will kill _all_ RF devices on modern laptops including BT. It might be a case where a user wants to disable wireless network support but keep BT active. Regards, /Johan. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:11 -0400, Ian Campbell wrote: > > 'Enable Networking' does supersede 'Enable Wireless' in all cases except > > where you want to disable scanning, but not all networking. I think > > this is a valid use case. > > > > Disabling all networking has two primary uses: As a "lock down" or > > "flight mode" and in the case of performing a clean disconnect. A clean > > disconnect might be nice if using a docking station, for example. > > Is there a chance of getting the option to selectively disable > interfaces? ie I have two wireless cards and only want one of them used, > for some reason I want to disable my wired card, but not wireless, > whatever. That will likely not be done through the applet, but through the system's standalone network config tools like system-config-network (Fedora), YaST (SUSE), etc. The applets themselves aren't really meant to expose the entire configuration, but just the stuff you'd use on a daily (or semi-daily) basis. Robert added the facility to have NM ignore interfaces last week or so, and it's been hooked up on at least SUSE so far (though not on Fedora quite yet). I'm unsure of the status of Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware in this regard. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:18 +0100, Nikolaus Filus wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:12, Robert Love wrote: > > But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all > > wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision > > is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to > > turn off everything, or both. > > What is this "enable/disable wireless" good for, when most notebooks > should either have a physical or software radio switch. So KISS, as there > is another tool for solving this. This is true, and I was just going to bring this up. Practical considerations though, make this less than ideal. First, not all laptops have an RF kill switch. Second, there isn't a good facility to notify userspace that the RF has been killed at all. So ideally we would have NetworkManager listen to the drivers (or netlink, or whatever) such that when the RF kill switch has been activated, we deactivate the device. Need to remember this when people start designing the new netlink replacement for WEXT. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
> 'Enable Networking' does supersede 'Enable Wireless' in all cases except > where you want to disable scanning, but not all networking. I think > this is a valid use case. > > Disabling all networking has two primary uses: As a "lock down" or > "flight mode" and in the case of performing a clean disconnect. A clean > disconnect might be nice if using a docking station, for example. Is there a chance of getting the option to selectively disable interfaces? ie I have two wireless cards and only want one of them used, for some reason I want to disable my wired card, but not wireless, whatever. ... or was that a design decision? It seems like something that should be there. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Hi, On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:12, Robert Love wrote: > But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all > wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision > is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to > turn off everything, or both. What is this "enable/disable wireless" good for, when most notebooks should either have a physical or software radio switch. So KISS, as there is another tool for solving this. Just my 2ยข Nikolaus ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Derek Atkins wrote: Quoting Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to turn off everything, or both. I think an "airplane mode" is important.. Clearly we want a way to turn off wireless.. I also think having a control to turn off wireless separate from wired is also important, but I'm not sure I can provide a good reason why I think it's important. The only reason I can think is if you don't want to unplug the physical wire but still want to switch over to a different network infrastructure I have to agree with Derek here... I would hate to see either of these separate Enable flags vanish. They are distinct actions. Firstly, I believe "dis/enable all" requires no further defence. I also find it difficult to make a strong argument for the wireless only enable. I imagine it should be possible to independently disable all interfaces (future additions too), eg. auto-dialed PPP/GPRS connections or some such ie. it may need working into a more general framework at a later date, but please at least keep it for now! Let's see if I can dream up some use cases as support. Dan's gonna love these. Perhaps: 1) I work for the CIA or similar and wish to use a wired connection while on a spy plane. __surely__ that not-at-all-contrived example is in the set of use-cases for 0.6? There must be at least one airline providing somekind of inflight ethernet connection by now if only in 1st class? No? Virgin maybe? A little more realistic perhaps: 2) I want to use a back to back wired link while on a plane (I've seen this done several times) 3) I want my machine on a wired network but wish to be 'discreet' ie. no wireless beacon packets / responses. And one for the road (wait for it Dan... wait for it): 4) I am somekind of long-haired, peace-loving, tree-hugging laptop user (yet somehow don't have a Mac) and would like to use a wired connection but do not wish to add to the electromagnetic radiation that bounces round the room playing with my electrons and those of nearby friends, colleagues, trees and indeed everything (except dark matter?)! tOnY PS. Sorry it's 1am here and I am sick of the paper I was supposed to be finishing off. An easy distraction. ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Quoting Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 18:01 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: What about atheros people who lose connectivity during the scan? (Or has that been fixed in the driver?) That stupid ass problem has been fixed in madwifi-ng. Ahh, then perhaps it's time for me to update my driver! Thanks. But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to turn off everything, or both. I think an "airplane mode" is important.. Clearly we want a way to turn off wireless.. I also think having a control to turn off wireless separate from wired is also important, but I'm not sure I can provide a good reason why I think it's important. The only reason I can think is if you don't want to unplug the physical wire but still want to switch over to a different network infrastructure Robert Love -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 18:01 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: > What about atheros people who lose connectivity during the scan? > (Or has that been fixed in the driver?) That stupid ass problem has been fixed in madwifi-ng. But note that since, as Dan said, 'Enable Wireless' now turns off all wireless (not just scanning) that point is already moot. The decision is whether to offer an option to turn of all wireless, an option to turn off everything, or both. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:01 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > Except that Enable Wireless turns off wireless completely! Enable > Wireless _is_ "airplane mode" essentially. WRT to scanning, the > decision was that you will never be able to turn off scanning, that NM > will scan every now and again based on some heuristics. Scanning every > 2 minutes doesn't really take that much power, and people who think it's > unnecessary can simply deal with it. Good point. So I think I'd like to have an option to disconnect cleanly and turn everything off. If 'Wireless Enabled' in that case is redundant and not needed, I can remove it. Your thoughts? > Right, we can do this. I had intentionally kept the current model to be > less-smart on the wpa_supplicant front for (a) simplicity, and (b) > consistency. ie, we want to make sure where the bugs are, and what > exactly wpa_supplicant can do before we open it up and let > wpa_supplicant be "smart" about stuff. Error reporting is still > something of a concern here, but that will only get better with time. Nod. > Note that WEP still needs to be hard-coded since you can't ever know > that an access point supports only 40-bit WEP rather than 104-bit, or > whether it's using Shared Key or Open System until you try to connect to > it. But at least they nailed that bit with WPA. Yah, just for WPA we can offer a "WPA (Auto)" mode or similar. But fixing any bugs are a bigger concern. Any opinion on the other issues? I'll start drafting NEWS -- we have a lot new. ;-) Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Except that Enable Wireless turns off wireless completely! Enable > Wireless _is_ "airplane mode" essentially. WRT to scanning, the > decision was that you will never be able to turn off scanning, that NM > will scan every now and again based on some heuristics. Scanning every > 2 minutes doesn't really take that much power, and people who think it's > unnecessary can simply deal with it. What about atheros people who lose connectivity during the scan? (Or has that been fixed in the driver?) -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 15:19 -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:21 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > > 1) What was the rationale for Enable Networking again? If we have that, > > do we really need Enable Wireless? If there's a need for Enable > > Networking, I'd rather remove Enable wireless and just have one. Two > > seem redundant. Internally, one essentially calls "sleep" and the other > > actually disables wireless, no? > > 'Enable Networking' does supersede 'Enable Wireless' in all cases except > where you want to disable scanning, but not all networking. I think > this is a valid use case. > > Disabling all networking has two primary uses: As a "lock down" or > "flight mode" and in the case of performing a clean disconnect. A clean > disconnect might be nice if using a docking station, for example. > > So we definitely need an 'Enable Networking' option, because I think we > really need to give users a way to cleanly disconnect, and (legally) we > will eventually need a "flight mode." > > But "Enable Wireless" is nice for the scanning case. Albeit, I admit > that the two are a bit redundant. Except that Enable Wireless turns off wireless completely! Enable Wireless _is_ "airplane mode" essentially. WRT to scanning, the decision was that you will never be able to turn off scanning, that NM will scan every now and again based on some heuristics. Scanning every 2 minutes doesn't really take that much power, and people who think it's unnecessary can simply deal with it. > What do you think? > > > 2) I'm thinking 0.6 release within the next 2 weeks. Sound good in > > general (and wrt SUSE 10.1)? What are the major bugs to get fixed > > before then? Do you want to man the release stuff? I'd like to get > > some new content on the website too. General push for excitement, more > > docs, etc for 0.6. > > I will happily man the release 100%. 0.6 sounds good. I think we are > just about ready. Update website, sing a song on the blog, and so on to > light a fire under everyone and get them excited. Cool. > - Some people have suggested to me that NM is a regression over > straight wpa_supplicant, because wpa_supplicant can auto-detect > ciphers and even WPA version. So all of our options are > excessive. If accurate, apparently we can just not specify the > details and wpa_supplicant will get it right via auto-detection. > Allowing the fine tuning is fine, but if the default is just > "auto" and that works, all the better. Right, we can do this. I had intentionally kept the current model to be less-smart on the wpa_supplicant front for (a) simplicity, and (b) consistency. ie, we want to make sure where the bugs are, and what exactly wpa_supplicant can do before we open it up and let wpa_supplicant be "smart" about stuff. Error reporting is still something of a concern here, but that will only get better with time. Note that WEP still needs to be hard-coded since you can't ever know that an access point supports only 40-bit WEP rather than 104-bit, or whether it's using Shared Key or Open System until you try to connect to it. But at least they nailed that bit with WPA. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: NM tidbits
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:21 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > 1) What was the rationale for Enable Networking again? If we have that, > do we really need Enable Wireless? If there's a need for Enable > Networking, I'd rather remove Enable wireless and just have one. Two > seem redundant. Internally, one essentially calls "sleep" and the other > actually disables wireless, no? 'Enable Networking' does supersede 'Enable Wireless' in all cases except where you want to disable scanning, but not all networking. I think this is a valid use case. Disabling all networking has two primary uses: As a "lock down" or "flight mode" and in the case of performing a clean disconnect. A clean disconnect might be nice if using a docking station, for example. So we definitely need an 'Enable Networking' option, because I think we really need to give users a way to cleanly disconnect, and (legally) we will eventually need a "flight mode." But "Enable Wireless" is nice for the scanning case. Albeit, I admit that the two are a bit redundant. What do you think? > 2) I'm thinking 0.6 release within the next 2 weeks. Sound good in > general (and wrt SUSE 10.1)? What are the major bugs to get fixed > before then? Do you want to man the release stuff? I'd like to get > some new content on the website too. General push for excitement, more > docs, etc for 0.6. I will happily man the release 100%. 0.6 sounds good. I think we are just about ready. Update website, sing a song on the blog, and so on to light a fire under everyone and get them excited. Brainstorming TODO before 0.6: - I think we could get WPA Enterprise off with little effort, no? If so, no reason not to include that for 0.6. - madwifi and WPA. - RH #169372 and GNOME #323729. I _think_ I fixed this a couple weeks ago. The code is in CVS. - Some people have suggested to me that NM is a regression over straight wpa_supplicant, because wpa_supplicant can auto-detect ciphers and even WPA version. So all of our options are excessive. If accurate, apparently we can just not specify the details and wpa_supplicant will get it right via auto-detection. Allowing the fine tuning is fine, but if the default is just "auto" and that works, all the better. - I have seen some bugs that ad-hoc creation does not work, but this is probably drivers. Anything else? Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
NM tidbits
Robert, 1) What was the rationale for Enable Networking again? If we have that, do we really need Enable Wireless? If there's a need for Enable Networking, I'd rather remove Enable wireless and just have one. Two seem redundant. Internally, one essentially calls "sleep" and the other actually disables wireless, no? 2) I'm thinking 0.6 release within the next 2 weeks. Sound good in general (and wrt SUSE 10.1)? What are the major bugs to get fixed before then? Do you want to man the release stuff? I'd like to get some new content on the website too. General push for excitement, more docs, etc for 0.6. Cheers, Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
