Hello, On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 15:34 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 09:48 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote: > > Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > > > > > I have a longer rant that I'm strongly tempted to send. > > > > I'd wouldn't necessarily post your rant here, as most of us here agree > > that NM is a bad idea gone wrong. > Speak for yourself (unless you have hard data to back up your > assertion). Which assertion? That NM is a bad idea gone wrong or that most of us agree on it? I think I have some hard data on the former but not the later. > > You should, rather, post your rant as > > a nice big, fat bugzilla report on the NM and/or Gnome bugzillas. > Better would be a handful of focused, reproducible error reports, so > that the problems can be fixed and the tool improved. Rants aren't > really helpful as Bugzilla reports. They are, however, great ways to > generate traffic on mailing lists. > > > > It'd also be nice if there was a decent how-to on the various aspects of > > the configuraton of wpa_supplicant (what the various "key_mgmt", > > "pairwise" and other parameters mean and how to find out what to use, > > etc.) so normal non-geeks can sort it out. As far as I can see, people > > submit to NM nastiness because they can't sort those out themselves. > I agree with the need for more and better documentation for > wpa_supplicant and for NM. But I mostly "submit" to NM because it > mostly works for me. There in lies the real problem. I agree with you 100%. NM "mostly works" for me as well. I just got back from a conference in Vancouver where it managed the WiFi connectivity issues beautifully. The problem isn't when it works. The problem is when it doesn't. And it doesn't all to often. It's not most of the time, just a minority of the time, but way too often when you have to deal with a diverse changing set of environments (which is what I THOUGHT it was suppose to be designed for) as I do. When and where it doesn't work, "the gods that be" can not help you solve it. It's a closed box which doesn't allow for tinkering and tuning and scripting to fix things. Yeah, it "mostly works", but the times it doesn't are an unfixable abomination and a plague upon civilization. When it doesn't, the only solution is to drive a stake through its heart. "Mostly works" doesn't work, when you close your system and don't allow people to tune it and you refuse to acknowledge the parameters, and hooks, and scripts which the users have specified (and that does NOT mean forcing the user only through your myopic gui dialogs) and used successfully in the past. > -- > Matthew Saltzman > > Clemson University Math Sciences > mjs AT clemson DOT edu > http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs Mike -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
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
