On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> not handling IPv6 (I think that has been fixed by now), and many
> other awfulnesses.
Some basic setting can be done. But it illustrates nicely what is wrong
with the idea of extending ifconfig to support new features. IPv6
addre
On Wed 2014-12-31 08:49:00, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >>
> >>> You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless
> >>> maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus fo
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 12:14:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'm not saying "ifconfig is wonderful". It's not.
>
> But I *am* saying that "changing user interfaces and then expecting
> people to change is f*cking stupid".
>
> The fact is, ifconfig is simple for the simple cases, but more
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>
> ifconfig seems to just be broken for many cases of perfectly nice features
> in the kernel.
So I'm not saying "ifconfig is wonderful". It's not.
But I *am* saying that "changing user interfaces and then expecting
people to change is f*
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:57:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
> with? I mean, Cisco iOS is just _s_ universally loved, right?
>
> And yeah, I refuse to use "ip link" or other insane commands. Let's
> face it, "ifconfig" and
On 01/01/15 11:56, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
All in all:
If you want to get rid of wext, you still have to go a *very* long way
to get the same *stable* and high throughput quality with *all* chips
depending on mac80211 and
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:22 AM, David Lang wrote:
> there are things that you can do with "ip" that you can't do with
> "ifconfig", but they tend to be rather esoteric things (hundreds of IP
> addresses on "eth0" without using eth0:1, eth0:2, etc as one example)
>
> The trouble is that doing simpl
Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
>> All in all:
>> If you want to get rid of wext, you still have to go a *very* long way
>> to get the same *stable* and high throughput quality with *all* chips
>> depending on mac80211 and not just a few flagship drivers l
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 12/31/14 22:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Yeah, the confusing part is that "ip" tends to use "verb object"
scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
trying to emulate.
On 12/31/14 22:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Yeah, the confusing part is that "ip" tends to use "verb object"
scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
trying to emulate.
Side note: does anybody think that was really a
On 12/31/14 22:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Agree. I can't even recall using "ip" ever. iw help system does provide
command specific help. The phy keyword is both a command and a selector key,
which I realize is confusing to the user
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:57:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
> with? I mean, Cisco iOS is just _s_ universally loved, right?
Well, at the time when it was "ip" came out, Cisco had a defacto
monopoly on routing equipment, a
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> Yeah, the confusing part is that "ip" tends to use "verb object"
> scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
> trying to emulate.
Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
with? I mean, Cisc
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
> Agree. I can't even recall using "ip" ever. iw help system does provide
> command specific help. The phy keyword is both a command and a selector key,
> which I realize is confusing to the user, eg. 'iw help info' does provide
>
On 12/31/14 18:31, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 04:02:24PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
It is unfortunately indeed. I think iwconfig and friends will never go away
although iw is a better alternative, simply because people don't like to
change their home-made scripts/tools. WI
On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
checked out wicd repo and found a number of
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> Most poeple are still using "route" and "ifconfig" instead of "ip".
> Deal with it.
Indeed. This whole "let's throw out the old and broken" stuff is a disease.
It would have been much better (and it's still an option, as Ted
points out) f
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 04:02:24PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
> It is unfortunately indeed. I think iwconfig and friends will never go away
> although iw is a better alternative, simply because people don't like to
> change their home-made scripts/tools. WIRELESS_EXT actually is largely, but
On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 23:52 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
>
> It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities
> from wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means
> tools like 'iwconfig', 'iwlist', etc) ar
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
>> The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
>> want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
>> checked out wicd repo and found a number of iwconfig calls and they kick
>>
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:56:54AM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> The point is that WEXT has been depreciated for _years_. Nobody
> seems to have listened. Yes, talking to maintainers will get the
> last holdouts of the "big" tools (e.g. wicd) to fix them, but it's
> not going to change all the peop
Hi Borislav,
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:40:53AM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> Sadly, nobody will read that. It needs to be at least an error,
>> possibly with a big splat to scare people.
>>
>> Maybe using one of WARN()'s siblings instead.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Julian Calaby wrote:
> The point is that WEXT has been depreciated for _years_. Nobody seems
> to have listened. Yes, talking to maintainers will get the last
> holdouts of the "big" tools (e.g. wicd) to fix them, but it's not
> going to change all the people out there with hac
On 12/31/14 15:07, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
checked out wicd repo and found a number of iwconfig calls and they k
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:40:53AM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Sadly, nobody will read that. It needs to be at least an error,
> possibly with a big splat to scare people.
>
> Maybe using one of WARN()'s siblings instead.
And that opens a lot of useless bugzillas...
The right thing to do is go
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>>
You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless
maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Li
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
> want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
> checked out wicd repo and found a number of iwconfig calls and they kick
> off wpa_supplicant with we
On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>
>>> You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless
>>> maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
>>> consideration.". However, you did not wait for any res
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
> > You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless
> > maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
> > consideration.". However, you did not wait for any response from the
> > wireless maintainers nor from th
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: "*If* wireless maintainers
> think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
> consideration.". However, you did not wait for any response from the
> wireless maintainers nor from the author of
On 12/31/14 12:10, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools
like 'iwconf
> On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
> >
> > It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
> > wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools
> > like 'iwconfig', 'iwlist', etc) are not
On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities
from wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means
tools like 'iwconfig', 'iwlist', etc) are not working anymore. T
> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable"
>
> This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
>
> It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
> wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools like
> 'iwco
34 matches
Mail list logo