Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On 25 September 2011 03:15, Nilesh Govindarajan cont...@nileshgr.com wrote: It's stunning to know that something that's shipped by default with Ubuntu sucks so much? Canonical surely must have gone haywire. It wouldn't be the first time that they've effectively tested software by pushing it out to their user-base. PuulseAudio! I actually think that it's a fundamental problem with their software distribution model -- there's very little scope for someone to be both - Using the most up to date distribution version - Switching between 'stable' implementations of certain features and 'testing' ones. (Yes, I know about the different repos; I just think that so much basic functionality is only available through experimental, third-party, testing etc. that the majority of users will have them enabled, and think no further about it).
[gentoo-user] ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this: # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory * [1/5] Scanning /lib ... * [2/5] Scanning /usr/lib ... * [3/5] Scanning /usr/games/lib ... * [4/5] Scanning /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib ... * [5/5] Scanning /usr/local/lib ... What is this ld.so.conf.d/*.conf which the script cannot find? Should I just ignore it? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
Am 25.09.2011 12:53, schrieb Mick: I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this: # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory * [1/5] Scanning /lib ... * [2/5] Scanning /usr/lib ... * [3/5] Scanning /usr/games/lib ... * [4/5] Scanning /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib ... * [5/5] Scanning /usr/local/lib ... What is this ld.so.conf.d/*.conf which the script cannot find? Should I just ignore it? You can /probably/ ignore it. I have one file there: /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils.conf Content: /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib Hope this helps, Florian Philipp P.S.: That's why it is better to use `find ld.so.conf.d/ -name '*.conf' | xargs --no-run-if-empty cat` instead of `cat ld.so.conf.d/*.conf` signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Re: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
On 09/25/2011 03:53 AM, Mick wrote: I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this: # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory * [1/5] Scanning /lib ... * [2/5] Scanning /usr/lib ... * [3/5] Scanning /usr/games/lib ... * [4/5] Scanning /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib ... * [5/5] Scanning /usr/local/lib ... What is this ld.so.conf.d/*.conf which the script cannot find? Should I just ignore it? I think I have some obsolete files in /etc, which makes this confusing. #cat /etc/ld.so.conf # ld.so.conf autogenerated by env-update; make all changes to # contents of /etc/env.d directory /usr/local/lib include ld.so.conf.d/*.conf comes from /etc/env.d/00glibc /usr/lib/opengl/nvidia/lib /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.3 /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.2 //usr/lib/xulrunner-2.0 /usr/lib/qca2 /usr/lib/qt4 /usr/games/lib #ls -l /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27 Mar 24 2011 05binutils.conf That file seems to be obsolete because both of my current binutils packages were installed later than March 24. AFAICT there is nothing on my system that uses /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ at all. So, I'd say ignore the message.
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 5:56 AM, James Broadhead jamesbroadh...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 September 2011 03:15, Nilesh Govindarajan cont...@nileshgr.com wrote: It's stunning to know that something that's shipped by default with Ubuntu sucks so much? Canonical surely must have gone haywire. It wouldn't be the first time that they've effectively tested software by pushing it out to their user-base. PuulseAudio! You are right about Ubuntu pushing PulseAudio before it was ready, and (more worrisome) they did it without doing their homework (as the author of PulseAudio says himself): http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/jeffrey-stedfast.html But with Unity the problem is much more than being pushed before time: Unity is a project sponsored by Canonical, and if you want to contribute code to it, you need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), where you basically waive all copyright of your code to Canonical, and let them do anything with it. That's why nobody (except Ubuntu) is touching Unity with a three meters pole. You can find Unity packages for Debian and Fedora, and I think it would be an interesting project to make an ebuild of it. Some developer with enough time and interest will do it. But I can almost guarantee that Unity will not be used massively by any distribution that is not Ubuntu: And in the end that's what Canonical wants. They want Ubuntu to be different to other distros, to have an edge. Hence the CLA, so they can do whatever they want with it, even change license if so they want. The success of PulseAudio (like it or not many people) is shown in the fact that *every* distribution is using it, it's a dependency of GNOME (and it's a hard dependency on GNOME 3), and by now almost everybody agrees it works the way it's supposed to. Unity on the other hand will never be really used outside of Ubuntu, for the reasons I listed above. If not by the CLA, I probably would try Unity, even though I am really happy with my GNOME 3 desktop. Maybe it has really interesting ideas. But I really not care about any of them if they will be controlled by only one company for only one distribution. And besides, it's not even the distribution I use. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 16:37:48 Florian Philipp wrote: Am 25.09.2011 12:53, schrieb Mick: I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this: # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory * [1/5] Scanning /lib ... * [2/5] Scanning /usr/lib ... * [3/5] Scanning /usr/games/lib ... * [4/5] Scanning /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib ... * [5/5] Scanning /usr/local/lib ... What is this ld.so.conf.d/*.conf which the script cannot find? Should I just ignore it? You can /probably/ ignore it. I have one file there: /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils.conf Content: /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib Hope this helps, Florian Philipp P.S.: That's why it is better to use `find ld.so.conf.d/ -name '*.conf' | xargs --no-run-if-empty cat` instead of `cat ld.so.conf.d/*.conf` Thanks guys, I also have the same file in there, but only on my 64bit box which does _not_ come up with an error: # fix_libtool_files.sh x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5 * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths... * [1/11] Scanning /lib ... * [2/11] Scanning /usr/lib ... * [3/11] Scanning /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.2 ... * [4/11] Scanning /lib32 ... * [5/11] Scanning /lib64 ... * [6/11] Scanning /usr/lib32 ... * [7/11] Scanning /usr/lib64 ... * [8/11] Scanning /usr/local/lib ... * [9/11] Scanning /usr/local/lib32 ... * [10/11] Scanning /usr/local/lib64 ... * [11/11] Scanning /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib ... My 32bit boxen which come up with this message have an empty /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ directory. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On 25 September 2011, at 17:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: … But with Unity the problem is much more than being pushed before time: Unity is a project sponsored by Canonical, and if you want to contribute code to it, you need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), … … I can almost guarantee that Unity will not be used massively by any distribution that is not Ubuntu: And in the end that's what Canonical wants. They want Ubuntu to be different to other distros, to have an edge. Hence the CLA, so they can do whatever they want with it, even change license if so they want. … Unity on the other hand will never be really used outside of Ubuntu, for the reasons I listed above. Too early to say this, IMO. At the moment there are very mixed feelings about Unity. There are a good number of people who hate it, but there are some others who say I love it, except that I hate that it doesn't let me move the menu bar. Because Unity is still young, we don't yet see a mass of people who are wanting and eager to use it for its functionality's sake. But it does address some issues with Gnome3, for some people, I believe. The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If people want to use it, and it's in the package manager, then they will. You are very much an exception, IMO, taking ethical exception to Canonical's CLA. Unity is GPL. It can always be forked. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On 25 September 2011, at 17:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: … But with Unity the problem is much more than being pushed before time: Unity is a project sponsored by Canonical, and if you want to contribute code to it, you need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), … … I can almost guarantee that Unity will not be used massively by any distribution that is not Ubuntu: And in the end that's what Canonical wants. They want Ubuntu to be different to other distros, to have an edge. Hence the CLA, so they can do whatever they want with it, even change license if so they want. … Unity on the other hand will never be really used outside of Ubuntu, for the reasons I listed above. Too early to say this, IMO. At the moment there are very mixed feelings about Unity. There are a good number of people who hate it, but there are some others who say I love it, except that I hate that it doesn't let me move the menu bar. Because Unity is still young, we don't yet see a mass of people who are wanting and eager to use it for its functionality's sake. But it does address some issues with Gnome3, for some people, I believe. The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If people want to use it, and it's in the package manager, then they will. You are very much an exception, IMO, taking ethical exception to Canonical's CLA. It's not ethical: It's practical. Canonical's CLA makes it so that most (if not all of the) development of Unity will come from developers payed by Canonical. The whole direction for the project will come from Canonical. I cannot see a healty community project derived from this development policy. Having said that, of course I could be wrong. Unity is GPL. It can always be forked. That is also true, and another reason for its possible doom. Any code from Unity can be used in GNOME (if so the developers desire). The other way it's not possible, because code going into Unity needs to be CLA'd. People can fork Unity, sure. They can also fork GNOME 2, for that matters, and KDE 3. I just don't see it happening. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
Hi, Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant to connect to a WEP2 home network? If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the password correctly. I've been trying to follow this page but it completely eludes me. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=4 Thanks in advance, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi,
Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
to connect to a WEP2 home network?
If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the
password correctly. I've been trying to follow this page but it
completely eludes me.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=4
Thanks in advance,
Mark
This should be sufficient:
network={
ssid=network_ssid
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
psk=password
}
Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 20:54 +0100, Stroller wrote: The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If people want to use it, and it's in the package manager, then they will. You are very much an exception, IMO, taking ethical exception to Canonical's CLA. I think the important thing, for me anyway, is not the general user community, but the open source development community. Most of those people reluctant to sign their code over to another organization. Let's say, for example, that Linus Torvalds goes into another one of his Your desktop environment sucks! tirades and starts creating a bunch of patches to Unity. I somehow doubt he's going to add to that and here are some patches and by the way you can have complete copyright to it. Or what if Red Hat designates some of their programmers to help make Unity integrate better with Fedora, but wants to push those changes upstream (like a good free software citizen). I somehow doubt Red Hat is going to want to pay their employees to write code and turn over ownership of it to Canonical. I can just see the press release now: Red Hat and Canonical Announce New Software License Agreement. Huh? What? But it's *free* software!? Unity is GPL. It can always be forked. Yeah, but not everyone is going to want to fork an entire software project just to contribute some code and retain the rights to their own code. Say for example someone is really passionate about accessibility and wants to contribute to make desktop accessibility better, but doesn't want to sign a CLA? They're not going to fork just for that. No want wants Unity-fork with accessibility patches they want Unity with improved accessibility. This is why large community-lead free software projects like Linux, KDE, and GNOME rarely have forks aside from a few corporate-sponsored forks to fill a niche (e.g. Android). One could argue that Unity *is* a corporate-sponsored fork (of GNOME) to fill a niche. -a
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 21:59:05 Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi,
Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
to connect to a WEP2 home network?
If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the
password correctly. I've been trying to follow this page but it
completely eludes me.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=4
Thanks in advance,
Mark
This should be sufficient:
network={
ssid=network_ssid
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
psk=password
}
Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp
The above should work, but you may want to also try adding:
group=CCMP TKIP WEP104
(or any combo thereof)
If you have a key already then all is good. Use that.
If not, something like this will generate you a key:
http://www.speedguide.net/wlan_key.php
https://www.grc.com/passwords.htm
NOTE: Some (older) routers were having problems using symbols, spaces, etc.
so it may be easier to try just simple hex alphanumeric characters to see if
it works.
If you have a passphrase but not the key, then use the name of your SSID and
the wpa_passphrase command to generate the key.
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If people want to use it, and it's in the package manager, then they will. You are very much an exception, IMO, taking ethical exception to Canonical's CLA. It's not ethical: It's practical. Canonical's CLA makes it so that most (if not all of the) development of Unity will come from developers payed by Canonical. The whole direction for the project will come from Canonical. I cannot see a healty community project derived from this development policy. Having said that, of course I could be wrong. You may take the position that you won't write code that you must hand copyright assignment to, but many other open source developers carry no such compunctions. The model you see as stifling has carried projects like MySQL for years, and carried OpenOffice since it was renamed from StarOffice--a policy which worked out until Oracle decided it wasn't going to keep doing things the Sun way. I don't know if Trolltech had a policy of copyright assignment for contributions to Qt, but they had a dual-license model which couldn't have worked without some mechanism of consent from outside contributors. Copyright assignment still supports the open source model of many-eyes, and the code being licensed under the GPL means that people who use Unity's source code elsewhere will need to share their changes. If Canonical decides to be more restrictive than the GPL at some point, they still get to operate under about as much leeway as if the code had been BSD-licensed. Apart from a spurious Netcraft report, BSD seems to still be both alive and reasonably well. There is still one curious artifact; all the projects I've cited (except, I guess, the various BSDs, but the ATT story has its own levels of weirdness) were owned by companies which were later bought out. Trolltech by HP, which has been thrashing around worse than Yahoo. MySQL was bought by Sun. MySQL and OpenOffice were bought by Oracle when Oracle bought Sun. And, maybe it's just me, but I don't place huge importance on every small patch or bit of code I write; when I patch something, it's so that the program does what I want it to do. On the flip side, if the program is something I have a specific dedication to or a specific importance to (such as if I'm an officer or project manager), then I'm going to take more of an interest in retaining rights to the code. Otherwise, I just want the thing to work, and getting snippy about a source license is like demanding compensation from a restaurant for sticking a shim under a table that wasn't sitting level. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On 25 September 2011, at 23:17, Albert W. Hopkins wrote: … I think the important thing, for me anyway, is not the general user community, but the open source development community. Most of those people reluctant to sign their code over to another organization. None of this has got anything to do with whether or not people will use it. Or what if Red Hat designates some of their programmers to help make Unity integrate better with Fedora, but wants to push those changes upstream (like a good free software citizen). I somehow doubt Red Hat is going to want to pay their employees to write code and turn over ownership of it to Canonical. There are probably some other projects out there that we all use that are maintained most entirely by Red Hat. That doesn't stop us using them. Unity is maintained most entirely by Canonical. Why should that stop us using Unity on our desktops, if it's good enough? Unity is GPL. It can always be forked. Yeah, but not everyone is going to want to fork an entire software project just to contribute some code and retain the rights to their own code. Say for example someone is really passionate about accessibility and wants to contribute to make desktop accessibility better, but doesn't want to sign a CLA? I suspect there aren't that many people that really care. It's easy for us to armchair it here, but we're not going to get our heads down tomorrow and spend the next month creating code. The kind of person that does tends to just get on with coding, and is glad to see the code have a life of it's own once he's finished with it. If he signs the CLA, someone else will maintain it for him. Maybe Ubuntu will offer him a job - there can be lots of reasons someone might want to sign the CLA. … This is why large community-lead free software projects like Linux, KDE, and GNOME rarely have forks aside from a few corporate-sponsored forks to fill a niche (e.g. Android). For the examples of projects-without-forks that you mention, we can find a bunch of other examples that *do* have forks. mplayer, Chrome and Chromium, Firefox / IceWeasel, loads of community builds of Android. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant to connect to a WEP2 home network? Do you mean WPA2 or WEP? AFAIK there's no such thing as WEP2.
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote:
Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi,
Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
to connect to a WEP2 home network?
If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the
password correctly. I've been trying to follow this page but it
completely eludes me.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=4
Thanks in advance,
Mark
This should be sufficient:
network={
ssid=network_ssid
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
psk=password
}
Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp
Thanks Florian. I really appreciate the help. It was enough to get
things working after I realized I have a mind block about routes. This
email is coming to you over wireless so things are alright now, but I
have some confusion about switching between networks:
Looking here:
slinky ~ # cat /etc/conf.d/net
config_eth0=192.168.1.55 netmask 255.255.255.0
routes_eth0=default via 192.168.1.1
modules=wpa_supplicant
config_wlan0=192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0
routes_wlan0=default via 192.168.1.1
slinky ~ #
I specified routes for both eth0 and wlan0 thinking Gentoo would use
the one thats up, but it doesn't. It seems that even when I shut off
eth0 it still tries to use the eth0 route. To get his working I had to
comment out the eth0 route completely.
So, is there a way to point the default to 192.168.1.1 and have the
network use the one interface that's up?
Also, is there a way to have the system use wireless anytime he wired
connector isn't hooked up, of do I manually have to switch to root and
then do
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
/etc/init.d/net.wlan start
to switch over?
Anyway, it's working so that's a big step forward.
THANKS!!!
Cheers,
Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant to connect to a WEP2 home network? Do you mean WPA2 or WEP? AFAIK there's no such thing as WEP2. Yeah, WPA2. My bad. Thanks, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Unity on Gentoo?
On 25 September 2011, at 21:21, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: … At the moment there are very mixed feelings about Unity. There are a good number of people who hate it, but there are some others who say I love it, except that I hate that it doesn't let me move the menu bar. Because Unity is still young, we don't yet see a mass of people who are wanting and eager to use it for its functionality's sake. But it does address some issues with Gnome3, for some people, I believe. The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If people want to use it, and it's in the package manager, then they will. You are very much an exception, IMO, taking ethical exception to Canonical's CLA. It's not ethical: It's practical. Canonical's CLA makes it so that most (if not all of the) development of Unity will come from developers payed by Canonical. The whole direction for the project will come from Canonical. You're perfectly right - it's quite clear that the Unity programmers take direction from Canonical's (Shuttleworth's?) design direction. It's not a case of let's add this cool feature, it's a case of meeting a greater whole. And some people disagree with that greater whole, as it exists at the moment. Nevertheless, that's the case for Gnome, too. If people like the end result, they'll use it. … Any code from Unity can be used in GNOME (if so the developers desire). 1) I'm not sure if that's true. GNOME is part of the GNU Project [1], Before incorporating significant changes, make sure that the person who wrote the changes has signed copyright papers. [2] I'm glad to be corrected on this, if I'm mistaken. 2) Excepting that, it won't. The whole reason for Unity is that Shuttleworth and Gnome disagree on certain design decisions. IIRC according to Shuttleworth he approached GNOME developers regarding this (I think his particular focus was notifications) and agreed that Ubuntu would make some changes which would be integrated into Gnome shell. The code was completed, and then someone else at Gnome, who was in charge of design overview, decided they were doing to take a slightly different approach, and that none of Ubuntu's work was of any use to them. The story is disputed from both sides, of course, and it seems like this is a genuine misunderstanding, but it's quite clear that Gnome don't want to utilise Unity's code. 3) Excepting that, if Gnome or anyone else *were* to take code from Unity, it would not be part of Unity's doom, but it would be Unity's success - it would mean more people using software based on Unity. Stroller. [1] http://foundation.gnome.org/ [2] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html#Copyright-Papers
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Sep 26, 2011 6:37 AM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net
wrote:
Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
Hi,
Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
to connect to a WEP2 home network?
If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the
password correctly. I've been trying to follow this page but it
completely eludes me.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=4
Thanks in advance,
Mark
This should be sufficient:
network={
ssid=network_ssid
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
psk=password
}
Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp
Thanks Florian. I really appreciate the help. It was enough to get
things working after I realized I have a mind block about routes. This
email is coming to you over wireless so things are alright now, but I
have some confusion about switching between networks:
Looking here:
slinky ~ # cat /etc/conf.d/net
config_eth0=192.168.1.55 netmask 255.255.255.0
routes_eth0=default via 192.168.1.1
modules=wpa_supplicant
config_wlan0=192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0
routes_wlan0=default via 192.168.1.1
slinky ~ #
I specified routes for both eth0 and wlan0 thinking Gentoo would use
the one thats up, but it doesn't. It seems that even when I shut off
eth0 it still tries to use the eth0 route. To get his working I had to
comment out the eth0 route completely.
I suggest using the postup() and predown() facilities instead:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4chap=5
In postup(), create the default route e.g. ip route add default via $DG_IP
dev $IFACE metric $METRIC
In predown(), delete the default route. Same command, but 'delete' instead
of 'add'.
Note: metric comes into play only when eth0 and wlan0 are up simultaneously;
the lowest metric wins.
So, is there a way to point the default to 192.168.1.1 and have the
network use the one interface that's up?
Well, the default gateway on eth0 and wlan0 has the same IP. I'm not sure
iproute2 can stomach that.
Also, is there a way to have the system use wireless anytime he wired
connector isn't hooked up, of do I manually have to switch to root and
then do
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
/etc/init.d/net.wlan start
to switch over?
ifplugd or netplug.
Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
ifplugd or netplug. This is the better option IMO.
Re: [gentoo-user] WPA2 connection configuration?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: ifplugd or netplug. This is the better option IMO. Or skip the net config/init scripts stuff and just use something like wicd.
[gentoo-user] Firefox cookie manager
I'd like to whitelist sites to allow their cookies to stay permanently, then have all other sites cookies deleted upon browser close. Can anyone recommend a cookie manager?
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox cookie manager
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to whitelist sites to allow their cookies to stay permanently, then have all other sites cookies deleted upon browser close. Can anyone recommend a cookie manager? Cookie Monster is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar with the NoScript or RequestPolicy add-ons, it operates very much the same way. It lets you have fine-grained control over which cookies you allow or block, and you can allow cookies from a site for this browsing session only. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox cookie manager
Cookie Monster is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar with the NoScript or RequestPolicy add-ons, it operates very much the same way. It lets you have fine-grained control over which cookies you allow or block, and you can allow cookies from a site for this browsing session only. Looks good. How do i set the default action? Or does it just inherit the browser setting to determine the default?
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox cookie manager
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: Cookie Monster is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar with the NoScript or RequestPolicy add-ons, it operates very much the same way. It lets you have fine-grained control over which cookies you allow or block, and you can allow cookies from a site for this browsing session only. Looks good. How do i set the default action? Or does it just inherit the browser setting to determine the default? I believe it uses the browser's setting as default. It's probably best to block all cookies by default in Firefox's settings, that way only the ones you explicitly allow in the Cookie Monster add-on will be accepted.
Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox cookie manager
I believe it uses the browser's setting as default. Yeah that appears to be it, but you have a restart FF for CM to pick up the new setting.
