Hi,
I've just installed Fedora 9 on my laptop, and unfortunately a few things are getting worse in Fedora.
Network management has always been awkward on Fedora and with Fedora 9 it's getting much worse.
1. I have always edited the config files directly to get things working. And still have to ( it's just a straight forward wireless connection ). 2. NetworkManager is now the default on install, BUT... 2.1 NetworkManager does not give you a wireless connection when no user is logged in. 2.1.1 How am I going to run any network service, NTP, NFS, httpd, etc..... without a network? 2.1.2 How am I going to remotely administer my machines? 2.2 NetworkManager does not give you the ability to configure system wide networking services or policy. 2.3 NetworkManager does not have any decent documentation. 3. Try using WPA and DHCP at the same time. It's never worked in this or any previous Fedora. Yes, NM will do it, but that's no good because of the previously stated problems. the network service won't do it because it tries to run DHCP immediately after bringing up the interfaces...It SHOULD wait until wpa_supplicant has run and the interface is available for traffic before kicking off DHCP...
GDM was functional, well behaved and stable in Fedora 8. I used it to log into other F8 machines locked away in difficult to get at racks. Fedora 9 has effectively removed that ability by shipping a GDM with gdmsetup. How many users depend on that functionality? I did, and won't be able to upgrade to F9 for any other machines.
A suggestion...
Use the fedora website/wiki to collect information about use cases. Find out what people depend on. Use that to provide a guarantee that functionality and usefulness won't go backwards. If it was ever setup, I'd tell you everything I do with my machines.
Russell
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Russell Strong russell@strong.id.au wrote:
Hi,
I've just installed Fedora 9 on my laptop, and unfortunately a few things are getting worse in Fedora.
Network management has always been awkward on Fedora and with Fedora 9 it's getting much worse.
- I have always edited the config files directly to get things working.
And still have to ( it's just a straight forward wireless connection ). 2. NetworkManager is now the default on install, BUT... 2.1 NetworkManager does not give you a wireless connection when no user is logged in. 2.1.1 How am I going to run any network service, NTP, NFS, httpd, etc..... without a network? 2.1.2 How am I going to remotely administer my machines? 2.2 NetworkManager does not give you the ability to configure system wide networking services or policy. 2.3 NetworkManager does not have any decent documentation. 3. Try using WPA and DHCP at the same time. It's never worked in this or any previous Fedora. Yes, NM will do it, but that's no good because of the previously stated problems. the network service won't do it because it tries to run DHCP immediately after bringing up the interfaces...It SHOULD wait until wpa_supplicant has run and the interface is available for traffic before kicking off DHCP...
GDM was functional, well behaved and stable in Fedora 8. I used it to log into other F8 machines locked away in difficult to get at racks. Fedora 9 has effectively removed that ability by shipping a GDM with gdmsetup. How many users depend on that functionality? I did, and won't be able to upgrade to F9 for any other machines.
A suggestion...
Use the fedora website/wiki to collect information about use cases. Find out what people depend on. Use that to provide a guarantee that functionality and usefulness won't go backwards. If it was ever setup, I'd tell you everything I do with my machines.
Russell
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Try checking out upstream GDM bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553250
and also gdm mailing list: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gdm-list
Cheers, Valent.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Russell Strong russell@strong.id.au wrote:
Hi,
I've just installed Fedora 9 on my laptop, and unfortunately a few things are getting worse in Fedora.
Network management has always been awkward on Fedora and with Fedora 9 it's getting much worse.
- I have always edited the config files directly to get things working.
And still have to ( it's just a straight forward wireless connection ).
Wireless isn't straightforward in Linux at all, mostly due to hardware issues.
- NetworkManager is now the default on install, BUT...
Wireless was unworkable for me before NetworkManager
2.1 NetworkManager does not give you a wireless connection when no user is logged in.
I think, while that may be a short coming, it is fairly standard between GNU/Linux and Windows (possibly Mac). At least with Linux, you can get around that, one day, maybe even using NetworkManager
2.1.1 How am I going to run any network service, NTP, NFS, httpd,etc..... without a network?
I don't think servers using wireless cards as their primary route is a target use case of NetworkManager yet. For clients, I'm not sure what the idea is for NTP, and using autofs to mount your NFS shares will fix this issue.
2.1.2 How am I going to remotely administer my machines?
Seems like you'll need an init script to setup some default wireless connection
2.2 NetworkManager does not give you the ability to configure system wide networking services or policy.
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I withhold comments
2.3 NetworkManager does not have any decent documentation.
Fair problem
- Try using WPA and DHCP at the same time.It's never worked in this or
any previous Fedora. Yes, NM will do it, but that's no good because of the previously stated problems.
Here, I suggest you try to work closesly with the NetworkManager devs to solve the problems you have with it, as NM is meant to solve problems like this.
the network service won't do it because it tries to run DHCP immediately after bringing up the interfaces...It SHOULD wait until wpa_supplicant has run and the interface is available for traffic before kicking off DHCP...
Again, I don't think that servers using wifi+dhpc without a logged in user is as yet a target use case for NM. If you can suggest tweaks to the devs, maybe they can implement them for you
GDM was functional, well behaved and stable in Fedora 8. I used it to log into other F8 machines locked away in difficult to get at racks. Fedora 9 has effectively removed that ability by shipping a GDM with gdmsetup. How many users depend on that functionality? I did, and won't be able to upgrade to F9 for any other machines.
Well, a few things here. I don't use GDM myself. 'Login' here is pretty ambiguous. Since you mentioned GDM, I'll assume GUI login via VNC. I'm surprised to here that logging with VNC via the default login greeter isn't working. GUIs on remote racks may not be a popular, well tested use case (I think most people associate headless with GUI less)
A suggestion...
1) Consider a slower paced distro like Centos if it suits your needs 2) You seem to have a fairly serious setup going, your input on shotcomings, along with details of your use cases may be very useful. I suggest filing bugs and RFEs, and hope for positive responses.
Use the fedora website/wiki to collect information about use cases. Find out what people depend on. Use that to provide a guarantee that functionality and usefulness won't go backwards. If it was ever setup, I'd tell you everything I do with my machines.
Your on track with this, but I suggest using bugzilla.redhat.com. The wiki isn't (at least not yet) the best place for this.
Russell
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Russell Strong russell@strong.id.au wrote:
Hi,
I've just installed Fedora 9 on my laptop, and unfortunately a few things are getting worse in Fedora.
Network management has always been awkward on Fedora and with Fedora 9 it's getting much worse.
- I have always edited the config files directly to get things working.
And still have to ( it's just a straight forward wireless connection ).
Wireless isn't straightforward in Linux at all, mostly due to hardware issues.
When something works without configuration in the initial release of FC9 and stops after a NetworkManager update, I would bet a six pack of good beer that hardware isn't the issue.
- NetworkManager is now the default on install, BUT...
Wireless was unworkable for me before NetworkManager
2.1 NetworkManager does not give you a wireless connection when no user is logged in.
I think, while that may be a short coming, it is fairly standard between GNU/Linux and Windows (possibly Mac). At least with Linux, you can get around that, one day, maybe even using NetworkManager
You can get around it by disabling or even removing NM and setting the network code correctly. Or better yet using a script run rc.sysinit. NM just runs way too late to be of use.
2.1.1 How am I going to run any network service, NTP, NFS, httpd,etc..... without a network?
I don't think servers using wireless cards as their primary route is a target use case of NetworkManager yet.
Given that the network isn't brought up until the user logs in I don't think "server" is at issue here, other than the ones you can't reach. As in mounting home files on NFS, as in using LDAP, RADIUS, or Kerberos to validate the login, etc, etc. In other words the whole NM concept is wrong, it's "Windows think" ported to Linux, ignoring the common case where the computer does something useful other than wait for a keystroke.
For clients, I'm not sure what the idea is for NTP, and using autofs to mount your NFS shares will fix this issue.
2.1.2 How am I going to remotely administer my machines?Seems like you'll need an init script to setup some default wireless connection
You have that right, but it's the kind of think NM could and should be doing. And I don't think autofs is much good when you have no network until you log in. :-(
2.2 NetworkManager does not give you the ability to configure system wide networking services or policy.
I'm not sure what you mean here, so I withhold comments
The network is not a user resource, it is a system resource (in most cases). Setting up the network should be an administrative thing. NM was designed for Joe Hacker, who is competent, to be able to configure the network. Think Suzie Smallbiz, who provides these to sales critters and management, and want IT to be the only part of the organization toughing the network settings. Think corporate VPN, etc.
NM should be usable from the boot rc files (easily) and available only under controlled access to the rest of the users.
2.3 NetworkManager does not have any decent documentation.
Fair problem
- Try using WPA and DHCP at the same time.It's never worked in this or
any previous Fedora. Yes, NM will do it, but that's no good because of the previously stated problems.
Here, I suggest you try to work closesly with the NetworkManager devs to solve the problems you have with it, as NM is meant to solve problems like this.
See above, I can't say it won't, but I do say I believe it's the wrong problem, and NM sould be easily (and usually) used as a configured system resource, not restricted to user use by lack of interface (or documentation).
the network service won't do it because it tries to run DHCP immediately after bringing up the interfaces...It SHOULD wait until wpa_supplicant has run and the interface is available for traffic before kicking off DHCP...
Again, I don't think that servers using wifi+dhpc without a logged in user is as yet a target use case for NM. If you can suggest tweaks to the devs, maybe they can implement them for you
See above, these aren't servers.
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 13:03 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Given that the network isn't brought up until the user logs in
Checking the "activate device when computer starts" option in system-config-network works nicely for me.
-- Rex
That is using ther negteork service not the NM service. -- ======================================================================= It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aaron Konstam wrote:
That is using ther negteork service not the NM service.
nice typo.
- --
tc,hago.
g .
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
Rex Dieter wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Given that the network isn't brought up until the user logs in
Checking the "activate device when computer starts" option in system-config-network works nicely for me.
I had the feeling that I needed NM to get wsa working, but I'll try anything at this point. I'll let you know if that helps.
I just wish upgrade would mean "works better" rather than "works differently if at all." This system was dead reliable before the "security update" came along. ;-(
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Given that the network isn't brought up until the user logs in
Checking the "activate device when computer starts" option in system-config-network works nicely for me.
I had the feeling that I needed NM to get wsa working, but I'll try anything at this point. I'll let you know if that helps.
It appears that the current working solution is to start the interface by hand after the system is up, define it in network and keep NM out. It may be that NM simply came in with an upgrade at the same time as the breakage, but I'm not going back.
The proximate cause seems to be that DHCP tried to set up the NIC before it associates, because the supplicant is either not starting early enough or just taking too long to get connected. I about 85% sure of that sequence, most o the time I get associated but no IP, and my little script doesn't start dhclient until the AP is connected.
I just wish upgrade would mean "works better" rather than "works differently if at all." This system was dead reliable before the "security update" came along.
The timing of this startup may well have been right on the edge before the upgrade, and making something faster might be the one thing which made it too fast.
Thanks to all who offered ideas, given the ability to generate a script and no issues about running it being too inconvenient, I'm regarding this as ugly but working.
-
Aaron Konstam -
Arthur Pemberton -
Bill Davidsen -
g -
Rex Dieter -
Russell Strong -
Valent Turkovic