On Saturday 10 May 2008, Adalbert Prokop wrote: > 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. That NM is ancient, Fedora-8's and 9's are much more flexible, they support multiple devices. including mobile broadband devices, many more security options. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
