On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 21:06 +1300, Simon Geard wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 17:24 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > Clearly, a large and complex network with users coming and going > > demands a different approach. My call for simplicity related to a > > small, one or two desktop setup. I certainly wasn't prescribing how > > people should set up their wireless networks -- after all, surely the > > whole ethos of LFS/BLFS is to do your own thing. I was just trying to > > promote a simple alternative for a simple setup. > > I think it's just a difference in attitude - I think using NM *is* the > simple alternative, since configuration becomes just a case of select an > AP from a drop-down list and enter a password, then let NM deal with it. > Whereas your feeling is that having the runtime daemon is unnecessary > complication, and you're happier just setting up scripts and config > files to do things for you. > > Personally, I prefer the former - I used to do the latter before NM > became functional enough to use, and I'm happy to have something take > care of it for me. It's the same kind of thing as having HAL automount > removable storage - it's no big deal to pop open a command line and > mount the device, but it's easier to have something else do it > automatically. > > Simon. > > > --
Agreed. You can have a simple system that places the complexity on the user, or you can have a complex system that presents a simple interface to the user and does some things automatically. The latter approach aims to provide a system that just works. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
