On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 13:40 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
So you use the term automatic to mean that
the program should work without user intervention?
There are many programs of this kind, eg the kernel,
but they are not normally described as automatic.
It doesn't matter what you think the
Tim wrote:
it's rather annoying to be told something works automatically
if in fact it doesn't work for you.
It doesn't leave much room for advice on what to do about it.
The answer's rather obvious: If it doesn't work for you, then use
something *else* that's not automatic. It's
Timothy Murphy:
1) NM is actually working fine for me.
Mostly it is here, though it didn't on one computer.
2) I don't believe NM is automatic, whatever that means.
There's no mystery to what the word automatic means. The system sorts
itself out, according to how it was designed. i.e. No
Tim:
It's *always* been the case that automatic /somethings/ aren't
suitable for all situations (cars with automatic transmissions have
problems in some conditions, auto-focus lenses make mistakes under
many conditions, etc.).
Timothy Murphy:
3) If I had an automatic car that did not work
I
Tim wrote:
2) I don't believe NM is automatic, whatever that means.
There's no mystery to what the word automatic means. The system sorts
itself out, according to how it was designed. i.e. No manual
intervention required.
So you use the term automatic to mean that
the program should work
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 18:31 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
it's rather annoying to be told something works automatically
if in fact it doesn't work for you.
It doesn't leave much room for advice on what to do about it.
The answer's rather obvious: If it doesn't work for you, then use
something
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 15:23 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 13:09 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Aaron et al;
This is my last post (for a while) on this subject. Actually the
answers are quite simple. Just after spending $45 for Understanding
Linux Network Internals
From: Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. If you have a DHCP server on the network, then *IT* will configure
your network, automatically. There's no client-side
user-configuration involved with that, the server holds the
configuration data. Yes, it is possible for a DHCP client to have
overriding
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
network configuration manually. If you want to manually configure
things, then stop using automatic configuration systems, completely.
The NM in F9 supports manual configuration through the applet... right
click...edit connections.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 23:29 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Patrick;
As I said I am now satisfied that a conflict between some entity called
'network' or NM is the cause of my problems. So some of this discussion
is a bit moot.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Hi Aaron et al;
This is my last post (for a while) on this subject. Actually the
answers are quite simple. Just after spending $45 for Understanding
Linux Network Internals (but not yet delivered) it came to me what
everyone was saying.
Below I have tried out my own explanation. No response
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 13:09 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Aaron et al;
This is my last post (for a while) on this subject. Actually the
answers are quite simple. Just after spending $45 for Understanding
Linux Network Internals (but not yet delivered) it came to me what
everyone was
Ok, can I give it a try to help clear things up? Not that I am an expert on
the subject, but hopefully... :-) Somebody please correct me if I get
something wrong here.
When we speak of network, there are several layers at work here.
First, there is hardware. Cables, network cards at their
Thank you very much Aaron;
I am not going crazy!
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 15:23 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 13:09 -0400, William Case wrote:
[snip]
I can't find all the connection activity I had found previously but in
gconf-editor there is a database called:
Thanks for your time and thoughtful explanation Marko;
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 20:49 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Ok, can I give it a try to help clear things up? Not that I am an expert on
the subject, but hopefully... :-) Somebody please correct me if I get
something wrong here.
[BIG SNIP]
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or am I misunderstanding something?
I think you should get acquainted with the NM roadmap, specifically
the work concerning how user connections are going to be publishable
as system wide settings so NM can bring up
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 15:55 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or am I misunderstanding something?
I think you should get acquainted with the NM roadmap, specifically
the work concerning how user connections are going
optionalpam_gnome_keyring.so auto_start
googled sites gives info for gentoo and mandrivia only.
I am stumped. I will re-ask on the NetworkManager list, but first I
would like to straighten out in my mind the network vs NetworkManger
services thing.
--
Regards Bill;
Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
really stupid questions in more than one place. Is the 'network'
service supposed to be running while the NetworkManager
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
really stupid questions in more than one place. Is the 'network'
service supposed to be running
Now I am getting more confused.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 15:02 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
really stupid questions in more than one place. Is the
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 15:02 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
really stupid questions in more
Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
[snip]
He's referring to /etc/initi.d/network. And no, it
Hi Patrick;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:26 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 15:02 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[snip]
My qualification in the sense I think you mean was intended to convey
the idea that network is not a single process or
Hi Matthew;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
He's referring to /etc/initi.d/network. And no, it should be off if you
are running NetowrkManager
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:25 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Patrick;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:26 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 15:02 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[snip]
My qualification in the sense I think you mean was
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:03 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:25 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Patrick;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:26 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 15:02 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
William Case wrote:
If I check, I get:
]# service network status
Configured devices:
lo eth0
Currently active devices:
lo eth0
And it is back running. Even after hot or cold re-boot.
The way service network status works is that it uses the ip
command to get the list of interfaces
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:52 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
William Case wrote:
The way service network status works is that it uses the ip
command to get the list of interfaces that are up. So the list will
be the same if they are controlled by the network or the
NetworkManager
-ask on the NetworkManager list, but first I
would like to straighten out in my mind the network vs NetworkManger
services thing.
--
Regards Bill;
Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3
Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1
--
===
Things equal
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
I will see if I can get help with NetworkManager on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , but meanwhile, so as to avoid asking
really stupid questions in more than one place. Is the
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:02 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi;
NetworkManager has apparently screwed up a lot of small Gnome processes.
* Trouble with Evo getting itself stuck in downloading mail
(looping ??).
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:50 -0400, William Case wrote:
On advice in an earlier thread, it was suggested that ifconfig was
interfering and that I had no use for it. That I should move it aside
so that it would not be found. I moved it to a dir I keep in root for
such things --
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:57 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking.
[snip]
To ensure that the network service does not run at boot, run 'chkconfig
network off' as root. If the network service
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
snip
My qualification in the sense I think you mean was intended to convey
the idea that network is not a single process or daemon. Of course
there is a set of things collectively called network service.
which is why i
Sorry Patrick;
As they say in the political world, 'I mis-spoke'.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
You mean you moved the /sbin/ifconfig command to somewhere else? I can't
see any sane reason for doing that. It's definitely a sledgehammer way
of preventing it
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 22:48 +, g wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
snip
My qualification in the sense I think you mean was intended to convey
the idea that network is not a single process or daemon. Of course
there is a set of things
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:57 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking.
[snip]
To ensure that the network service does not run at boot,
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:28 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Matthew;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
He's referring to /etc/initi.d/network.
William Case wrote:
So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that
'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is sticking
it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, 'network' is
not a service I need. So why confuse the issue?
It is handy
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:11 -0400, William Case wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:02 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi;
NetworkManager has apparently screwed up a lot of small Gnome processes.
* Trouble with Evo getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
snip
Since I'm not aware of having responded to you before now on this topic,
I don't understand the sarcasm.
my apologies. was not meant as sarcasm.
only that if william had run 'locate', he would have found scripts
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote:
So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that
'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is
sticking it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running,
'network' is not a service I need. So why
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:28 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Matthew;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:40 -0400, William Case wrote:
He's referring to /etc/initi.d/network.
Matthew we seem to be talking at cross purposes.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:46 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:28 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Matthew;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 14:55 -0430, Patrick
Hi Patrick;
As I said I am now satisfied that a conflict between some entity called
'network' or NM is the cause of my problems. So some of this discussion
is a bit moot.
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote:
So
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:28 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:11 -0400, William Case wrote:
It lists 'Wired Network' and ' . System eth0' as the Access Points.
Which tells me it detects no access points in the neighborhood. Do you
have any and do they have eessids?
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, William Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron, in an earlier post you said If you use NM then
system-confiig-network is of no use. It controls the
scripts for network. How can I find out exactly which scripts NM
controls for the network? I am assuming the
Hi Jeff;
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 19:52 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, William Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron, in an earlier post you said If you use NM then
system-confiig-network is of no use. It controls the
scripts for network. How can I find out exactly
Jeff Spaleta:
You continue to confuse yourself. NM does most of what it does
automatically.
William Case:
In computers, nothing does most of what it does automagically.
I wish people would stop using that bogus term. Apart from it being a
stupid word, there's nothing magic about it, at
53 matches
Mail list logo
