Bug#437018: closed by Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs)
-- Forwarded message -- From: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:13:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs Wouter Verhelst wrote: (there's no working connection to the Internet, but what the heck, we'll try anyway, and if it doesn't work, the admin will have to wait for the connection to time out an insane number of times) If there's no network connection *at all*, there is no timeout to wait for. Try it yourself: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/joeyifdown wlan0 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/joeytime apt-get update ... 0.06user 0.04system 0:00.21elapsed 48%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+3403minor)pagefaults 0swaps zsh: exit 100 command time apt-get update In the edge case where there is a network connection with a default route that doesn't work, you get to wait for a timeout. We have discussed this before, and this is a sufficiently uncommon enough case that it's not worth asking in every install whether d-i should hit the network[1]. If you're in such a situation, unplug your network cable, or fix your network before trying to install Debian, or run the install in expert mode and tell it not to set up a network connection. I see what you're saying. However, one must still navigate the d-i steps related to networking in any case, and in my experience I've had to wait for a DHCP timeout on a disconnected network card. IMHO, it seems logical to add a Don't use a network for this install option as a choice on the screen which lists the available network cards. If that is selected, the updates step and all network-related steps would be skipped entirely. I think that would be the ideal solution - it would make the install much more friendly to users who don't have networking during the install. This situation is probably more common than you think, since it includes every wi-fi-only user as well as anyone who uses authentication methods like 802.11x. Could this be considered? Tim Tim
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
I guess having it look for a network in the background and silently fail would be preferable, in any case. Is this doable? On 8/10/07, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Tim Hull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It would be GREAT if the network-related steps would be skipped/bypassed on a default install from non-netinstall media. Users then could configure the network at their leisure after the install using the tools they prefer (NetworkManager etc). Could this be considered? Probably not. Having a system with immediate support for security updates is one of the key features of Debian. Doing this would defeat that design choice. I'm letting other D-I team members give their advice and decide whether this bug report should be kept or marked wontfix. -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGu/1r1OXtrMAUPS0RAvwAAJoCbz6zN8M4ZXBWVjIAix7ekHr1gwCgoWOg dUzSO/6xCpIaWOHTn6NOsxs= =eJ8o -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
Il giorno ven, 10/08/2007 alle 07.53 +0200, Christian Perrier ha scritto: Quoting Tim Hull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It would be GREAT if the network-related steps would be skipped/bypassed on a default install from non-netinstall media. Users then could configure the network at their leisure after the install using the tools they prefer (NetworkManager etc). Could this be considered? Probably not. Having a system with immediate support for security updates is one of the key features of Debian. Doing this would defeat that design choice. I'm letting other D-I team members give their advice and decide whether this bug report should be kept or marked wontfix. IMVHO security upgrades are a _must_, if the user is free to bypass this step I'm quite sure she/he will forgot to check for security update leave her/his system unsecure. Bye sc -- Stefano Canepa aka sc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stefanocanepa.it Three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience and hubris. Le tre grandi virtù di un programmatore: pigrizia, impazienza e arroganza. (Larry Wall) signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
Of course security updates should be enabled by default, and I do agree that it's sensible for the system to _ask_ to try to install security updates even if there's no network. But there are cases where security updates don't make much sense, and I do think that the current behaviour (there's no working connection to the Internet, but what the heck, we'll try anyway, and if it doesn't work, the admin will have to wait for the connection to time out an insane number of times) is a bug. In my circumstance, I've been installing on a system with both an Ethernet card (supported during the install) and a wi-fi card (supported with non-free madwifi driver). I currently don't use the ethernet - wi-fi is all I use. When I go back to school (in about 2 weeks or so), I'll have Ethernet, but it uses 802.1x authentication so it still will be worthless for the install. Furthermore, even if I had networking durring the install, I do NOT like the idea of downloading updates during the install without prompting - sometimes I'm using a satellite internet connection with some pretty hefty bandwidth quotas and would MUCH rather grab these updates during off-peak hours. I had this cause bandwidth throttling in the past when I was installing Debian in a VM with network connectivity during the install. Anyway, it seems like there should be a would you like to use the network question or option in the installation boot menu. As it stands, the current behavior is quite bad for those who either have no usable network during an install (which I would have to guess is sizable) and even worse for those who *do* have networking but which have limited bandwidth that they don't want sucked up at will. Tim
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:20:20PM +0200, Stefano Canepa wrote: IMVHO security upgrades are a _must_, if the user is free to bypass this step I'm quite sure she/he will forgot to check for security update leave her/his system unsecure. I disagree. Security is always a tradeoff; it's not hard to imagine a case where the right answer to should I install security updates as they come out is no. Just a few exmples: - A user on a low-speed Internet connection who only uses the Internet to read mail (once a week), and to do wikipedia lookups (for school, or some such). Staying up-to-date on security updates on a daily basis would require transferring way more data for the security updates than such a user consumes for 'regular' network access anyway. Yes, low-speed Internet still exists today -- many broadband ISPs provide very cheap 64kbit/s connections (with a cap on bandwidth usage, or paid per minute) over ADSL or cable in their low-end product range. For users in this case, buying a CD set rather than trying to install over the Internet is the best choice. - In one case, I set up a server for a customer where the only accounts were system administrator accounts (who all have root anyway), the only network-accessible open ports apart from SSH would be managed by a proprietary Java application, and the only data that would get on the system would be stuff produced by this Java application. The whole system was accessible only from the corporate network. While security updates for that Java application do make sense, getting security updates for obscure parts of the operating system underneath don't make as much sense there -- especially not given the amount of hoops we'd have to jump through to get the security updates on that machine was rather high (a rather paranoid firewall with NTLM-authenticated proxy-access only, with a rather complex bureaucracy required to get an exception...). - To get slightly extreme: what's the value of security updates for a home system which is only connected to the rest of the world through a printer, a keyboard and a scanner? Are you going to implement RFC1149? Of course security updates should be enabled by default, and I do agree that it's sensible for the system to _ask_ to try to install security updates even if there's no network. But there are cases where security updates don't make much sense, and I do think that the current behaviour (there's no working connection to the Internet, but what the heck, we'll try anyway, and if it doesn't work, the admin will have to wait for the connection to time out an insane number of times) is a bug. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
Package: debian-installer Version: 20070308 Priority: wishlist During installs from CD-ROM and DVD media, users are still currently prompted to set up the network and download security fixes from the network. However, many (quite possibly most) users who use the full-blown install media (as opposed to the netinstall CD) do not have access to a network connection which is functional during the install and as such have to navigate through these steps and the inevitable errors they produce for no reason at all. It would be GREAT if the network-related steps would be skipped/bypassed on a default install from non-netinstall media. Users then could configure the network at their leisure after the install using the tools they prefer (NetworkManager etc). Could this be considered?
Bug#437018: Network shouldn't be used/enforced on non-network installs
Quoting Tim Hull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It would be GREAT if the network-related steps would be skipped/bypassed on a default install from non-netinstall media. Users then could configure the network at their leisure after the install using the tools they prefer (NetworkManager etc). Could this be considered? Probably not. Having a system with immediate support for security updates is one of the key features of Debian. Doing this would defeat that design choice. I'm letting other D-I team members give their advice and decide whether this bug report should be kept or marked wontfix. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
