1 |
On 13/12/2013 14:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 13/12/2013 00:47, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM, <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> At home I use a wired connection so did notice the following problem |
6 |
>>>> until I traveled and tried to connect wirelessly. |
7 |
>>>> The problem must have started sometime within the past month. |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> If I have wicd started by systemd, i.e. |
10 |
>>>> systemctl enable wicd |
11 |
>>>> The wired network is started fine but not the wireless. Instead, I see |
12 |
>>>> in the systemd journal |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> wicd[290]: Failed to connect to non-global ctrl_ifname: wired error: No |
15 |
>>>> such file or directory |
16 |
>>>> wicd[290]: Failed to connect to non-global ctrl_ifname: wireless error: No |
17 |
>>>> such file or directory |
18 |
>>>> |
19 |
>>>> If I instead systemctl disable wicd, reboot, and then manually type |
20 |
>>>> wpa_supplicant -i wireless -c /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf -B |
21 |
>>>> it works. |
22 |
>>>> |
23 |
>>>> Indeed after I have booted I can start wicd and cannot get the error |
24 |
>>>> above, but the actual behavior is not consistent. |
25 |
>>>> |
26 |
>>>> My system is ~amd64, profile gnome/systemd |
27 |
>>>> |
28 |
>>>> My wireless driver is from the package broadcom-sta (wl) |
29 |
>>> |
30 |
>>> I have never used wicd, so I can't say exactly what it's the problem; |
31 |
>>> but I was under the impression that wicd is basically dead. Its last |
32 |
>>> release was more than a year and a half ago. |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> Regards. |
35 |
>>> |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> release more than a year and a half ago != dead |
38 |
> |
39 |
> In this particular case I think it is. |
40 |
> |
41 |
>> the code the user has still works whether the devs adds upstream commits |
42 |
>> or not. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Well, apparently not [1]. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> It hasn't bit-rooted, is not incompatible with everything else and |
47 |
>> doesn't have outstanding security bugs with little chance of being fixed. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Checking [1] and [2], I would think that wicd satisfies (or *at least* |
50 |
> starts to satisfy) the very definition of bitrot. |
51 |
> |
52 |
>> So what's the problem? |
53 |
> |
54 |
> If the code worked perfectly, none. But apparently it doesn't; I don't |
55 |
> know, I don't use it myself. The usual signs of bitrot are there, |
56 |
> though. |
57 |
> |
58 |
>> By that logic, zenity needs to have died 5 years ago but it's still around |
59 |
> |
60 |
> That's a really bad example. Zenity didn't had a 3.10 release, but it |
61 |
> had a 3.8 [3] in march, so it's 9 months since the last release, not |
62 |
> 18. Also, now zenity has a 3_10 tag in git [4]. And lastly, its lats |
63 |
> commit was 6 days ago, and it had several bugfixes committed not three |
64 |
> weeks ago [5]. On the other hand, wicd only has had translations |
65 |
> committed in the last 6 *months* [6], and the "development" branch for |
66 |
> 2.0 hasn't been touched in *3 years* [7]. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> This is only after a quick search through wicd and zenity repositories |
69 |
> (and Gentoo bugzilla). Perhaps wicd has reached perfection and it |
70 |
> doesn't need an upstream since everything simply works and there is |
71 |
> nothing else to do with it. That would be a first in software history, |
72 |
> though. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> I would simply not use it, and I will recommend any of its users to |
75 |
> change to either NetworkManager [8] or connman [9], like pronto. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/wicd/+bugs |
78 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486440 |
79 |
> [3] ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/zenity/3.8/ |
80 |
> [4] https://git.gnome.org/browse/zenity/tag/?id=ZENITY_3_10_0 |
81 |
> [5] https://git.gnome.org/browse/zenity/log/ |
82 |
> [6] https://code.launchpad.net/~wicd-devel/wicd/experimental |
83 |
> [7] https://code.launchpad.net/~wicd-devel/wicd/aqua |
84 |
> [8] http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/ |
85 |
> [9] https://connman.net/ |
86 |
> |
87 |
> Regards. |
88 |
> |
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 |
I'm not convinced, your evidence is rather under-whelming. |
92 |
|
93 |
Yes, wicd is currently in need of a maintainer and some simple fixes per |
94 |
your [1] are not being applied. But on the whole the code works for the |
95 |
majority of folks, I can't find any outstanding CVEs and I don't see how |
96 |
you can qualify this as needing to not be used. YMMV, yes, but don't use |
97 |
it? Nah, I can't see a legitimate case. |
98 |
|
99 |
As for zenity, it appears someone has stepped up to the plate in recent |
100 |
months, but I clearly recall it being mostly abandoned for years. I |
101 |
needed it for winetricks as the alternative kdialog is just ... poor. |
102 |
But zenity couldn't be gotten to work at all. If we'd applied your POV |
103 |
towards wicd to zenity, see where I'm going? |
104 |
|
105 |
As for network-manager, we have years of history on this very mailing |
106 |
list of people reporting problems getting it to work in anything but |
107 |
simple straightforward cases. In so many of these cases, switching to |
108 |
wicd fixed the issue. In all that time, you are the only person that |
109 |
comes to mind often claiming that nm works great for them. Based on that |
110 |
alone, I classify nm as "meh software" which might work but all too |
111 |
often doesn't. |
112 |
|
113 |
As for connman, it works great on my phone but my limited experience |
114 |
with it on desktops was similar to nm. |
115 |
|
116 |
Admittedly both nm and connman might have improved by leaps and bounds |
117 |
in recent months and perhaps they are now awesome, but I don't see it. |
118 |
|
119 |
Just call wicd for what it really is at this point: ymmv |
120 |
|
121 |
|
122 |
|
123 |
-- |
124 |
Alan McKinnon |
125 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |