On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > (Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop > infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly; > you're online if you have a default route. [...]
I know that you put it in braces because it's not your main point. Still I don't think this is true. Other proprietary (and some open) OSes now have elaborate measurement facilities to check if they're online. They detect captive portals and tell you to login, they detect if just IPv6 is broken, but IPv4 works, the other way around, they might even detect if DNS64 and NAT64 are in use. (Coming from an IPv6 background.) I don't want applications to be stuck connecting to stuff if they're not really online. Obviously TCP will retry the handshake for some time but it will still require manual action of reconnecting pidgin if the network access is finally granted. On the other hand one could argue that the network resources pidgin would need could already be available when there's no default route. So centralizing the knowledge what it takes for a network connection to be considered up (for which n-m gives you basic means like requiring IPv4 and/oror requiring IPv6 to be up on a given interface) makes a lot of sense. And it could still be improved. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
