Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Roland Knall 
No, it just means, that extcap interfaces are either available by default
or not. They do not run permanently.

regards

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Bill Meier  wrote:

> On 9/9/2016 1:42 AM, Roland Knall wrote:
>
>> Hello List
>>
>> There is currently a discussion going on
>> in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling
>> extcap features by default or not.
>>
>> There are basically two sides to the argument:
>>
>> Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used
>> by a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
>> clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling
>> them when needed is ok.
>>
>> Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
>> extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with
>> Wireshark in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device
>> support to Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very
>> complicated to do so. For those users to enable the support before using
>> it seems like an unnecessary hassle.
>>
>> I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
>> here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
>> default.
>>
>> To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
>> this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
>> "Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".
>>
>> regards
>> Roland
>>
>>
>>
> Does "enabling extcap features by default" mean that additional programs
> ("extcaps" ?) are automatically loaded and started when wireshaark is
> started ?
>
>
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Bill Meier 

On 9/9/2016 1:42 AM, Roland Knall wrote:

Hello List

There is currently a discussion going on
in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling
extcap features by default or not.

There are basically two sides to the argument:

Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used
by a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling
them when needed is ok.

Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with
Wireshark in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device
support to Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very
complicated to do so. For those users to enable the support before using
it seems like an unnecessary hassle.

I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
default.

To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
"Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".

regards
Roland




Does "enabling extcap features by default" mean that additional programs 
("extcaps" ?) are automatically loaded and started when wireshaark is 
started ?


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Steve Karg 
Hi Roland,

For the BACnet mstpcap (RS485 serial packetizer, third party, open source),
the users currently just drag-n-drop the mstpcap.exe file into the extcap
folder, and it starts working as it should when Wireshark is launched. It
only adds interfaces if the PC has serial ports detected/connected. Having
it enabled by default avoids the hassle and support emails since it "just
works", so that is what I prefer.

Best Regards,

Steve


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Roland Knall  wrote:

> Hello List
>
> There is currently a discussion going on in https://code.wireshark.org/
> review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling extcap features by default or not.
>
> There are basically two sides to the argument:
>
> Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used by
> a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
> clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling them
> when needed is ok.
>
> Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
> extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with Wireshark
> in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device support to
> Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very complicated to do
> so. For those users to enable the support before using it seems like an
> unnecessary hassle.
>
> I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
> here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
> default.
>
> To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
> this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
> "Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".
>
> regards
> Roland
>
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=
> unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Alexis La Goutte 
I prefer disable by default (to avoid a lot of interface)

But add a advanced option/tab is also a good idea
or add on list interface a button to enable extcap

After don't forget when a preference is enable, the setting is kept (only
need to enable extcap for the first start...)

Cheers

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Roland Knall  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Graham Bloice  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>> I vote for disable by default, I feel that the extcap interfaces are
>> superfluous and confusing to most of the users I support as they are for
>> "niche" purposes.
>>
>> I don't follow the argument that a user actually needing an extcap
>> interface for their "niche" purpose will find enabling it at all
>> difficult.  If this is felt to be an issue, why not add a top-level menu
>> for extcaps to make their control easier?
>>
>
>
> A lot of users on my end (around 100 people use the provided extcap at the
> moment) use Wireshark for capturing and first-glance analysis. They expect
> the interfaces just to be there, and would default to the built-in
> interfaces, which would lead to wrong captures and results. I agree, that
> we have now a lot of special extcap interfaces, but I would have to side
> with Dario here, it should be the role of the utility to present
> possibilities. Otherwise only guys specifically looking for some issues
> will find it, and not everyone will use it.
>
> In my opinion it is more of a question on how to present interfaces to the
> end-user. Would it not make more sense, to change the way interfaces are
> shown, instead of hiding them as default? For instance, a "Recent" or
> "Common" tab and an advanced tab in the interface list would make much more
> sense. Also adding favorite interfaces to a short-list.
>
> If the major consensus is hiding extcap default interfaces, I'll
> grudgingly commit to it ;-), but it will present some issues at my end and
> there will be a lot of users, never using the feature in the first place.
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=
> unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Roland Knall 
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Graham Bloice 
wrote:

>
>
>>
> I vote for disable by default, I feel that the extcap interfaces are
> superfluous and confusing to most of the users I support as they are for
> "niche" purposes.
>
> I don't follow the argument that a user actually needing an extcap
> interface for their "niche" purpose will find enabling it at all
> difficult.  If this is felt to be an issue, why not add a top-level menu
> for extcaps to make their control easier?
>


A lot of users on my end (around 100 people use the provided extcap at the
moment) use Wireshark for capturing and first-glance analysis. They expect
the interfaces just to be there, and would default to the built-in
interfaces, which would lead to wrong captures and results. I agree, that
we have now a lot of special extcap interfaces, but I would have to side
with Dario here, it should be the role of the utility to present
possibilities. Otherwise only guys specifically looking for some issues
will find it, and not everyone will use it.

In my opinion it is more of a question on how to present interfaces to the
end-user. Would it not make more sense, to change the way interfaces are
shown, instead of hiding them as default? For instance, a "Recent" or
"Common" tab and an advanced tab in the interface list would make much more
sense. Also adding favorite interfaces to a short-list.

If the major consensus is hiding extcap default interfaces, I'll grudgingly
commit to it ;-), but it will present some issues at my end and there will
be a lot of users, never using the feature in the first place.

Roland
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Dario Lombardo 
Even if I am not strong on that, I'd vote for enable by default. I admin
that some of them are specific (like ciscodump or androiddump), but I
consider others like sshdump and randpktdump pretty general. Having them
hidden by default would limit their use. New users will never notice this
new interfaces unless they careful read the release notes (and the average
users don't). I guess that many people do remote sniffing on ssh connected
machine and they will have great advantage by sshdump. We make software
that should reach the users, don't we? What if it's hidden?
At the same time I must admin the list of extcap can became annoying long.
For that reason some time ago I filed a enhancement on bugzilla to change
the list into a dropdown menu.

https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12553

>From my perspective, this kind of enhancement would make the discussion and
the preference itself obsolete. The extcaps would be enabled and shipped by
default, but the look of the GUI wouldn't be cluttered.
Dario.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Roland Knall  wrote:

> Hello List
>
> There is currently a discussion going on in https://code.wireshark.org/
> review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling extcap features by default or not.
>
> There are basically two sides to the argument:
>
> Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used by
> a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
> clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling them
> when needed is ok.
>
> Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
> extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with Wireshark
> in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device support to
> Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very complicated to do
> so. For those users to enable the support before using it seems like an
> unnecessary hassle.
>
> I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
> here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
> default.
>
> To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
> this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
> "Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".
>
> regards
> Roland
>
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=
> unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Graham Bloice 
On 9 September 2016 at 06:42, Roland Knall  wrote:

> Hello List
>
> There is currently a discussion going on in https://code.wireshark.org/
> review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling extcap features by default or not.
>
> There are basically two sides to the argument:
>
> Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used by
> a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
> clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling them
> when needed is ok.
>
> Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
> extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with Wireshark
> in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device support to
> Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very complicated to do
> so. For those users to enable the support before using it seems like an
> unnecessary hassle.
>
> I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
> here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
> default.
>
> To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
> this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
> "Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".
>
>
I vote for disable by default, I feel that the extcap interfaces are
superfluous and confusing to most of the users I support as they are for
"niche" purposes.

I don't follow the argument that a user actually needing an extcap
interface for their "niche" purpose will find enabling it at all
difficult.  If this is felt to be an issue, why not add a top-level menu
for extcaps to make their control easier?

-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-09 Thread Michal Labedzki 
Hello,

I vote for "Enable for default" and please remember that I am creator of
one of them - androiddump. It provides interfaces like libpcap (aka normal
Wireshark interfaces) and more (Logcat). So I want to have it out of box.
(cons: may generate a lot of interfaces... for 2 Android devices connected
over USB it provide max 12 interfaces)

Disabled by default should be only possible if we can inform user that "I
am Wireshark and I support X,Y,Z". I propose create big button "Show
more" (Manage Interfaces) on main welcome screen on interfaces list. I hope
users will click there and see what Wireshark can.

Or maybe disable all interfaces by default and let user configure it on
first startup? libpcap also provide a lot of interfaces. In this moment I
have 12 interfaces from libpcap, 14 from androiddump, 1 random packet
interfaces [Wireshark's extcap] and 5 custom extcap interfaces - I have no
problem with number of interfaces. Moreover I daily use only 2 interfaces
from androiddump (Bluetooth interfaces)

Summary:
1. I want to Enable extcap by default.
2. I say "yes" for "Disabled by default" if users will be informed there
are additional interfaces available.

On 9 September 2016 at 07:42, Roland Knall  wrote:

> Hello List
>
> There is currently a discussion going on in https://code.wireshark.org/
> review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling extcap features by default or not.
>
> There are basically two sides to the argument:
>
> Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used by
> a majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it
> clutters up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling them
> when needed is ok.
>
> Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
> extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with Wireshark
> in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device support to
> Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very complicated to do
> so. For those users to enable the support before using it seems like an
> unnecessary hassle.
>
> I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
> here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
> default.
>
> To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
> this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
> "Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".
>
> regards
> Roland
>
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=
> unsubscribe
>



-- 

Pozdrawiam / Best regards
-
Michał Łabędzki, Software Engineer
Tieto Corporation

Product Development Services
http://www.tieto.com / http://www.tieto.pl
---
ASCII: Michal Labedzki
location: Swobodna 1 Street, 50-088 Wrocław, Poland
room: 5.01 (desk next to 5.08)
---
Please note: The information contained in this message may be legally
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any unauthorised use, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank You.
---
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
---
Tieto Poland spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością z siedzibą w
Szczecinie, ul. Malczewskiego 26. Zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym
Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru
Sądowego pod numerem 124858. NIP: 8542085557. REGON: 812023656. Kapitał
zakładowy: 4 271500 PLN
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wireshark-dev] Enable extcap by default or not

2016-09-08 Thread Roland Knall 
Hello List

There is currently a discussion going on in
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/17498 in regard to enabling extcap
features by default or not.

There are basically two sides to the argument:

Cons - extcap interfaces are advanced features, which will not be used by a
majority of users. As more and more of those interfaces emerge, it clutters
up the list. Therefore disabling them by default and enabling them when
needed is ok.

Pros - There are users out there, who use Wireshark solely together with
extcap interfaces. Lots of those users are not very familiar with Wireshark
in general. extcap was intended to bring capture device support to
Wireshark where otherwise it would not be present or very complicated to do
so. For those users to enable the support before using it seems like an
unnecessary hassle.

I just wanted to get the meaning of the list, on how we should proceed
here, and if three are other arguments for or against enabling extcap by
default.

To clarify, I am a Pro guy as I fear 3rd party users will not understand
this and this will lead to support cases which will generate the opinion
"Wireshark is overly complicated, let's use something else".

regards
Roland
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe