Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #220328 > unrolled thread

Re: Buster without systemd?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Buster without systemd? kjonca@fastmail.com (Kamil Jońca) - 2020-03-23 20:10 +0100
    Re: Buster without systemd? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-03-23 23:20 +0100
    Re: Buster without systemd? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-24 11:40 +0100
      Re: Buster without systemd? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-24 15:10 +0100
        Re: Buster without systemd? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-24 16:30 +0100
          Re: Buster without systemd? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-03-24 16:50 +0100
            Re: Buster without systemd? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-24 20:50 +0100
              Re: Buster without systemd? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 17:10 +0100
                Re: ethernet cfg via cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-03-25 17:40 +0100
                  Re: ethernet cfg via kernel cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 18:10 +0100
                    Re: ethernet cfg via kernel cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-26 15:40 +0100
        Re: Buster without systemd? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-03-24 17:10 +0100
          Re: Buster without systemd? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-03-24 20:50 +0100
          Re: Buster without systemd? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-24 21:00 +0100
            Re: Buster without systemd? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-03-25 04:30 +0100
              Re: Buster without systemd? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 08:40 +0100
                Re: Buster without systemd? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-03-25 20:10 +0100
              Re: Buster without systemd? Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 21:40 +0100
                Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-03-26 03:20 +0100
                  Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-26 08:30 +0100
                    Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-03-27 04:30 +0100
                      Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-03-27 08:20 +0100
                  Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2020-03-26 11:10 +0100
                  Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-03-26 12:20 +0100
            Re: Buster without systemd? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 10:10 +0100
              Re: Buster without systemd? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-03-25 12:20 +0100
                Re: Buster without systemd? Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2020-03-25 12:50 +0100
                Re: Buster without systemd? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-03-25 13:00 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#220328 — Re: Buster without systemd?

Tony van der Hoff <lists@vanderhoff.org> writes:

> On 23/03/2020 15:15, Michael Howard wrote:
>> On 23/03/2020 14:28, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:37:47 -0400
>>> Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>
> I know it's a sensitive subject, and I really don't want to upset the
> list, there's been enough of that already, but why are some people so
> afraid of systemd?
Well. I am quite happy when systemd start to govern services/daemons.

I also understand timers - cron and anacron sometimes are too "weak".
But now systemd wants:
- manage network interfaces
- do name resolving
- and so on.
and quite often it cannot do it properly (ie. with little more
complicated configuration). 

KJ

-- 
http://wolnelektury.pl/wesprzyj/teraz/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#220335

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:51:18 +0100
kjonca@fastmail.com (Kamil Jońca) wrote:

> Well. I am quite happy when systemd start to govern
> services/daemons.

Good for you.


I don't suppose you use gpsd under systemd. The gpsd maintainers hate
systemd with a passion because systemd makes assumptions about daemons
which simply do not apply to gpsd. And every time the gpsd maintainers
cobble together some way of beating systemd into submission, systemd
changes the rules and we're back to the drawing board.


> 
> I also understand timers - cron and anacron sometimes are too "weak".

What does "weak" mean?

cron has its problems. So someone -- debian? -- glued anacron on top of
that, giving us the subsequent mess. Now along comes systemd with more
of the same ill-thought-out design? No thanks.


> But now systemd wants:
> - manage network interfaces
> - do name resolving
> - and so on.
> and quite often it cannot do it properly (ie. with little more
> complicated configuration). 

And there's perfectly good code out there, some of which has been in
use since before Bill Gates was in diapers.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220360

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 23 mar 20, 19:51:18, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> But now systemd wants:
> - manage network interfaces
> - do name resolving
> - and so on.
> and quite often it cannot do it properly (ie. with little more
> complicated configuration). 

systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations.

Why should I install an additional package (e.g. ifupdown, Network 
Manager, etc.) just for setting up a static IP?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220385

Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations.
> 
> Why should I install an additional package (e.g. ifupdown, Network
> Manager, etc.) just for setting up a static IP?

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 :) but for the couple of months I am using it on the desktop it
seems to work fine

On the servers as mentioned before it is of no use for now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220392

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 24 mar 20, 14:49:03, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations.
> > 
> > Why should I install an additional package (e.g. ifupdown, Network
> > Manager, etc.) just for setting up a static IP?
> 
> well - for static IP you don't need systemd

Well, "something" has to bring up the interface with the correct IP and 
set up the default route, even if it's "just" a script calling 'ip', 
which I would then have to manually plug-in somewhere in the boot 
process.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220394

	Hi.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 24 mar 20, 14:49:03, deloptes wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > 
> > > systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations.
> > > 
> > > Why should I install an additional package (e.g. ifupdown, Network
> > > Manager, etc.) just for setting up a static IP?
> > 
> > well - for static IP you don't need systemd
> 
> Well, "something" has to bring up the interface with the correct IP and 
> set up the default route, even if it's "just" a script calling 'ip', 
> which I would then have to manually plug-in somewhere in the boot 
> process.

Actually, deloptes is right and you're not.

Kernel's documentation - [1] - describes a way to force a kernel itself
to configure a network interface for IPv4, be it static or DHCP, along
with the primitive routing table (default gw at most).

Taking IPv6's RA into the account, one does not need anything but the
working kernel on the client side to get IPv6 and a primitive routing
table.

Reco

[1] /usr/share/doc/linux-doc-4.19/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsroot.txt.gz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220415

Reco wrote:

> Actually, deloptes is right and you're not.
> 
> Kernel's documentation - [1] - describes a way to force a kernel itself
> to configure a network interface for IPv4, be it static or DHCP, along
> with the primitive routing table (default gw at most).
> 
> Taking IPv6's RA into the account, one does not need anything but the
> working kernel on the client side to get IPv6 and a primitive routing
> table.
> 
> Reco
> 
> [1]
>
[/usr/share/doc/linux-doc-4.19/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsroot.txt.gz

Thank you Reco,
you obsoleted my reply. I will just add few things.
I and many more have been using diskless boot and nfsroot even before the
time systemd emerged.
What I find good is the dynamic management of services -  I do not remember
where I read this, but it was a good article about the need to move forward
from old init. This enlightened me. Thinking over, I came to the conclusion
that the people are right about this need. It seems only the way they did
it was wrong. However, thanks Debian, no one was forced to do anything.
At the end people still complain (my opinion) not because systemd is not
working well, but because they have to learn something new.
I still do not understand why RedHat should use it on the servers as I
personally do not see much of advantage, but it just works, so why not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220482

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 24 mar 20, 20:31:17, deloptes wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> 
> > Actually, deloptes is right and you're not.
> > 
> > Kernel's documentation - [1] - describes a way to force a kernel itself
> > to configure a network interface for IPv4, be it static or DHCP, along
> > with the primitive routing table (default gw at most).
> > 
> > Taking IPv6's RA into the account, one does not need anything but the
> > working kernel on the client side to get IPv6 and a primitive routing
> > table.
> >
> [/usr/share/doc/linux-doc-4.19/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsroot.txt.gz
> 
> Thank you Reco,
> you obsoleted my reply.

Ok, I'll bite.

$ cat /proc/cmdline
ip=192.168.1.64::192.168.1.1::a64p:eth0:off root=LABEL=a64p rootwait rw rootflags=noatime

The interface is not even up after start and if I bring it up manually 
with 'ip' it doesn't have any IPv4 address configured (only IPv6, which 
is to be expected here).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220483 — Re: ethernet cfg via cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?)

Andrei POPESCU composed on 2020-03-25 17:45 (UTC+0200):

> $ cat /proc/cmdline
> ip=192.168.1.64::192.168.1.1::a64p:eth0:off root=LABEL=a64p rootwait rw rootflags=noatime

> The interface is not even up after start and if I bring it up manually 
> with 'ip' it doesn't have any IPv4 address configured (only IPv6, which 
> is to be expected here).

eth0 isn't kernel native any more, is it? Maybe add net.ifnames=0 and/or change
192.168.1.64 to 192.168.1.64/24?
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220484 — Re: ethernet cfg via kernel cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 25 mar 20, 12:21:49, Felix Miata wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU composed on 2020-03-25 17:45 (UTC+0200):
> 
> > $ cat /proc/cmdline
> > ip=192.168.1.64::192.168.1.1::a64p:eth0:off root=LABEL=a64p rootwait rw rootflags=noatime
> 
> > The interface is not even up after start and if I bring it up manually 
> > with 'ip' it doesn't have any IPv4 address configured (only IPv6, which 
> > is to be expected here).
> 
> eth0 isn't kernel native any more, is it?

It is on this device (PINE A64+).

> Maybe add net.ifnames=0 and/or change 192.168.1.64 to 192.168.1.64/24?

According to my understanding of the docs it must be an IP, the netmask 
(if necessary) can be specified in the 4th field (already tried that).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220525 — Re: ethernet cfg via kernel cmdline (was: Buster without systemd?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 25 mar 20, 18:52:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 25 mar 20, 12:21:49, Felix Miata wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU composed on 2020-03-25 17:45 (UTC+0200):
> > 
> > > $ cat /proc/cmdline
> > > ip=192.168.1.64::192.168.1.1::a64p:eth0:off root=LABEL=a64p rootwait rw rootflags=noatime
> > 
> > > The interface is not even up after start and if I bring it up manually 
> > > with 'ip' it doesn't have any IPv4 address configured (only IPv6, which 
> > > is to be expected here).
> > 
> > eth0 isn't kernel native any more, is it?
> 
> It is on this device (PINE A64+).
> 
> > Maybe add net.ifnames=0 and/or change 192.168.1.64 to 192.168.1.64/24?
> 
> According to my understanding of the docs it must be an IP, the netmask 
> (if necessary) can be specified in the 4th field (already tried that).

Apparently I have been using an older version of the docs (kernel is 5.4 
from backports), the current one allows specifying also DNS and NTP 
servers. The updated command line looks like this:

$ cat /proc/cmdline
ip=192.168.1.64::192.168.1.1:255.255.255.0:a64p:eth0:off:192.168.1.1:: root=LABEL=a64p rootwait rw rootflags=noatime

It still won't work and there's nothing in the logs, even with 'debug' 
on the kernel command line.

As this was more of a curiosity than necessity I won't be pursuing it 
further, systemd-networkd is for me easier to configure.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220396

On Tue 24 Mar 2020 at 14:49:03 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > systemd-networkd is not meant to do very complicated configurations.
> > 
> > Why should I install an additional package (e.g. ifupdown, Network
> > Manager, etc.) just for setting up a static IP?
> 
> 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 :) but for the couple of months I am using it on the desktop it
> seems to work fine
> 
> On the servers as mentioned before it is of no use for now.

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.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220416

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:44:54 -0500
David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:


> 
> The interface is what matters when you're travelling with a laptop.
> 
[Looks around carefully for signs of a thunderstorm] Don't laugh,
but I've found Network Manager on my mobiles quite useful and reliable
for handling wired, wifi and VPN connections. For the last few years,
anyway, after it stopped being Notwork Manager.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220418

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
by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management -
AFAIK it works via dbus.

systemd <-> dbus <-> network-manager
              |
    network-manager-interface

This is my understanding how it works or should work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220446

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
> by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management -
> AFAIK it works via dbus.
> 
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220452

David Wright wrote:

> 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.
> 

I did not tell you what you want. You just complained there is no interface.

> 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.)

I gave up on the Gnome spooks many years ago. But AFAIK wicd is the same or
similar as network-manager - well the GNome/GTK way of doing things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220489

On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 08:22:33 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I did not tell you what you want. You just complained there is no interface.

I didn't *complain* that systemd-networkd hadn't got an interface—I just
said that I needed one, which is why I've carried on using wicd. There
are occasions when time is of the essence in configuring a wireless
connection, which is why I consider it of overriding importance.

> > 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.)
> 
> I gave up on the Gnome spooks many years ago. But AFAIK wicd is the same or
> similar as network-manager - well the GNome/GTK way of doing things.

Sorry, I don't want a DE, I don't use one, and I don't know anything
about the "Gnome way of doing things", so I'll refrain from commenting
on how network-manager¹ does what it does. I thought we were discussing
systemd-networkd, hence my quotation about it from the arch wiki.

To be fair, I haven't tried to set up systemd-networkd for the
reason given. Sometimes I've left machines as installed, with
ifupdown running the show (not my laptops). Eventually, though,
I usually end of installing wicd regardless, when I find I can't
communicate with it remotely—wicd just seems better at bringing
and keeping the networking up.

¹ I'll opine that its name is unfortunate—rather like inventing a
  currency and calling it "Currency" or "Money".

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220492

On Tue, 24 Mar, 2020 at 22:04:07 -0500, David Wright wrote:

[...]

> 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.
> 

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220495 — Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]

On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 20:18:29 (+0000), 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220500 — 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web