On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 19:21 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:30:02PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Looking at the code, the 4-second delay is only used when the device is
> > > actually connected to someth
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 19:21 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:30:02PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Looking at the code, the 4-second delay is only used when the device is
> > actually connected to something. State 3 == DISCONNECTED, state 2 ==
> > UNAVAILABLE, so it's per
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:30:02PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> Looking at the code, the 4-second delay is only used when the device is
> actually connected to something. State 3 == DISCONNECTED, state 2 ==
> UNAVAILABLE, so it's performing as expected here. Were there actually
> an IP address as
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 23:01 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:58:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 23:06 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:10:48PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > > Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > > > > One thing I like
Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's a point. How about no timeout when there's an alternative
> connection available, timeout when there isn't?
In the presence of many wireless connections, not all are equal in
regards to access to things and should be treated as such (see other
thread).
--Ben
--
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 13:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 09:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 16:35 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> >
> > > deal with in these cases) than "some packets were lost". An option to
> > > "persist connections despite something
Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> Why not configurable? Or, why not to ask the user? ("wired carrier lost
> for xx seconds, switching to wifi in xx seconds: button,
> button")
Personally, I've seen that it's usually "I want to be on this network
until I disconnect". My example was the wireless in my dorm r
On 04/27/2011 08:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> NM has had one for a while: 4 seconds. THe problem with longer is that
> then any time you do disconnect the cable or undock your laptop, NM
> would think that you were still connected for 10 seconds (or more) until
> if flipped over to wifi. So ther
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:58:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 23:06 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:10:48PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > > > One thing I liked a lot with my ifconfig scripts/wpa_supplicant pairing
> > > > i
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 19:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > One thing I liked a lot with my ifconfig scripts/wpa_supplicant pairing
> > is that when wireless is spotty, the network doesn't keep going up and
> > down. Instead, applications see lots of dropped packets. When
> > re
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 23:06 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:10:48PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > > One thing I liked a lot with my ifconfig scripts/wpa_supplicant pairing
> > > is that when wireless is spotty, the network doesn't keep going up and
>
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 09:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 16:35 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>
> > deal with in these cases) than "some packets were lost". An option to
> > "persist connections despite something probably not actually existing"
> > would be nice for situations
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 16:35 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> deal with in these cases) than "some packets were lost". An option to
> "persist connections despite something probably not actually existing"
> would be nice for situations like this.
Or, more simply, just a short time-out on cable disconne
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:10:48PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > One thing I liked a lot with my ifconfig scripts/wpa_supplicant pairing
> > is that when wireless is spotty, the network doesn't keep going up and
> > down. Instead, applications see lots of dropped packets. When
On 04/24/2011 10:43 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I've found NM to actually be quite tolerant of spotty wireless connections.
>> In fact, usually, it's me who triggers a reconnect (or if possible, a
>> connect to a different access point, e.g. when I'm at the university in a
>
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I've found NM to actually be quite tolerant of spotty wireless connections.
> In fact, usually, it's me who triggers a reconnect (or if possible, a
> connect to a different access point, e.g. when I'm at the university in a
> shared building with the business university (W
Ben Boeckel wrote:
> One thing I liked a lot with my ifconfig scripts/wpa_supplicant pairing
> is that when wireless is spotty, the network doesn't keep going up and
> down. Instead, applications see lots of dropped packets. When
> reauthentication can take 5 to 10s (or more), assuming that the
> c
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Newsflash: the network service is DEPRECATED!!! That's what NetworkManager
>> is for.
>
> Newsflash: NM doesn't replace the network service yet. Maybe when NM
> can do everything ifup/ifdown can do, the discussion about deprecation
>
Am 24.04.2011 07:30, schrieb Farkas Levente:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:25, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>>> Newsflash: the network service is DEPRECATED!!! That's what NetworkManager
>>> is for.
>>
>> Newsflash: NM doesn't replace the network service yet. Maybe
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:25, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Newsflash: the network service is DEPRECATED!!! That's what NetworkManager
>> is for.
>
> Newsflash: NM doesn't replace the network service yet. Maybe when NM
> can do everything ifup/ifdown can do, the d
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Newsflash: the network service is DEPRECATED!!! That's what NetworkManager
> is for.
Newsflash: NM doesn't replace the network service yet. Maybe when NM
can do everything ifup/ifdown can do, the discussion about deprecation
can happen, but until then, ple
Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Some of them are so trivial, that it looks like nobody is working
> on it:
> $ rpm -ql initscripts | xargs egrep "/route |/ifconfig " --color
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/network: /sbin/route add -$args
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-aliases:eval $(LC_ALL= LANG
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 09:00 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Not to be entirely glib, but with this and the net-tools dependencies...
>> we're taking patches. Mere notification is not as useful as
>> contribution.
>
> Some of them are so trivial, t
On 03/28/2011 09:00 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Xose Vazquez Perez (xose.vazquez at gmail.com) said:
>> wireless-tools is deprecated since time ago. iw/rfkill
>> should be used instead it.
>
> Not to be entirely glib, but with this and the net-tools dependencies...
> we're taking patches. Mere
24 matches
Mail list logo
