Timothy Murphy wrote on Saturday 10 May 2008: Hello! > >> If in fact wpa_supplicant is a necessary part of NetworkManager > >> even if one is not using WPA, > >> would it not make more sense to change its name? > > NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant to do network security this way it > > doesnt > > need to reinvent the wheel. it is the same on all distros. > What is the same on all distros? > Wpa_supplicant? NetworkManager? > NetworkManager using wpa_supplicant? > If in fact a program called wpa_supplicant is run > in order to establish WiFi security > even if WPA is not being used, wpa_supplicant can also setup WEP encryption, static or based on RADIUS authentication. AFAIK NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant as the only backend to WiFi security. It surely has its advantages, because this way you have only to deal with *one* helper problem. I don't know if NM needs wpa_supplicant on unencrypted connections. Besides, NM is OK if you have rather simple network environment, e.g. only one WLAN card and one LAN card, you use only static WPA or WEP keys, you have a DHCP server, and so on, and so on... Each time the setup is more complex (no LAN DHCP, two WLAN cards or WPA + PEAP/MSCHAPv2) my experience tells me that it simply can't do it. (V0.6.7 on Ubuntu.) The non-existent documentation does not help either. NM will be great once it is ready, but it still has a long way to go. -- bye, Adalbert Happiness is the greatest good. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
