On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
not handling IPv6 (I think that has been fixed by now), and many
other awfulnesses.
Some basic setting can be done. But it illustrates nicely what is wrong
with the idea of extending ifconfig to support new features. IPv6
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:57:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
with? I mean, Cisco iOS is just _s_ universally loved, right?
And yeah, I refuse to use ip link or other insane commands. Let's
face it, ifconfig and route
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
ifconfig seems to just be broken for many cases of perfectly nice features
in the kernel.
So I'm not saying ifconfig is wonderful. It's not.
But I *am* saying that changing user interfaces and then expecting
On 01/01/15 11:56, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
All in all:
If you want to get rid of wext, you still have to go a *very* long way
to get the same *stable* and high throughput quality with *all* chips
depending on mac80211
Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
[...]
All in all:
If you want to get rid of wext, you still have to go a *very* long way
to get the same *stable* and high throughput quality with *all* chips
depending on mac80211 and not just a few flagship drivers like
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:22 AM, David Lang da...@lang.hm wrote:
there are things that you can do with ip that you can't do with
ifconfig, but they tend to be rather esoteric things (hundreds of IP
addresses on eth0 without using eth0:1, eth0:2, etc as one example)
The trouble is that doing
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 12:14:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So I'm not saying ifconfig is wonderful. It's not.
But I *am* saying that changing user interfaces and then expecting
people to change is f*cking stupid.
The fact is, ifconfig is simple for the simple cases, but more
On Wed 2014-12-31 08:49:00, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: *If* wireless
maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities
from wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means
tools like 'iwconfig', 'iwlist', etc) are not working anymore.
On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools
like 'iwconfig', 'iwlist', etc) are not working
On 12/31/14 12:10, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
On 12/30/14 23:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools
like
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: *If* wireless maintainers
think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
consideration.. However, you did not wait for any response from the
wireless maintainers nor from the author of the
On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: *If* wireless
maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request to Linus for
consideration.. However, you did not wait for any response from the
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
checked out wicd repo and found a number of iwconfig calls and they kick
off wpa_supplicant with wext
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Peter Hurley pe...@hurleysoftware.com wrote:
On 12/31/2014 08:26 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
You mentioned in the discussion and I quote: *If* wireless
maintainers think otherwise, I'll send a revert request
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 01:40:53AM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
Sadly, nobody will read that. It needs to be at least an error,
possibly with a big splat to scare people.
Maybe using one of WARN()'s siblings instead.
And that opens a lot of useless bugzillas...
The right thing to do is go
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 04:02:24PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
It is unfortunately indeed. I think iwconfig and friends will never go away
although iw is a better alternative, simply because people don't like to
change their home-made scripts/tools. WIRELESS_EXT actually is largely, but
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
Most poeple are still using route and ifconfig instead of ip.
Deal with it.
Indeed. This whole let's throw out the old and broken stuff is a disease.
It would have been much better (and it's still an option, as Ted
points
On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
The thing with WEXT is that it will stay as is. So if tools like wicd
want to support new features like P2P it will need to make the switch. I
checked out wicd repo and found a number of
On 12/31/14 18:31, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 04:02:24PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
It is unfortunately indeed. I think iwconfig and friends will never go away
although iw is a better alternative, simply because people don't like to
change their home-made scripts/tools.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Agree. I can't even recall using ip ever. iw help system does provide
command specific help. The phy keyword is both a command and a selector key,
which I realize is confusing to the user, eg. 'iw help info' does provide
help
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
Yeah, the confusing part is that ip tends to use verb object
scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
trying to emulate.
Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
with? I
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:57:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Side note: does anybody think that was really a good idea to begin
with? I mean, Cisco iOS is just _s_ universally loved, right?
Well, at the time when it was ip came out, Cisco had a defacto
monopoly on routing equipment, and
On 12/31/14 22:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Agree. I can't even recall using ip ever. iw help system does provide
command specific help. The phy keyword is both a command and a selector key,
which I realize is confusing to the user,
On 12/31/14 22:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'oty...@mit.edu wrote:
Yeah, the confusing part is that ip tends to use verb object
scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
trying to emulate.
Side note: does anybody think that
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 12/31/14 22:57, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'oty...@mit.edu wrote:
Yeah, the confusing part is that ip tends to use verb object
scheme, which is consistent with the Cisco IOS command set it was
trying to
Subject: [PATCH] Revert cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable
This reverts commit 24a0aa212ee2dbe44360288684478d76a8e20a0a.
It's causing severe userspace breakage. Namely, all the utilities from
wireless-utils which are relying on CONFIG_WEXT (which means tools like
'iwconfig',
27 matches
Mail list logo
