Re: Proposal to add patches to netcfg (#682737)
On Mon 17 Sep 2012 at 11:25:27 +0300, Sorina - Gabriela Sandu wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Brian Potkin <claremont102@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I realise a default is only a default and the selection can be changed,
> > but I'm puzzled by the third option. Why treat a wireless install
> > differently from a wired install? It would expected that a user who has
> > chosen not to use a wired connection would still want connectivity after
> > booting into into the new system,
>
> The main reason for this is that as far as I know writing configs
> related to a wireless network to /e/n/i enforce using only that
> particular network later (of course if you don't modify the file) and
> also that the interface is unmanageable for other tools. The idea was
> to leave the network unconfigured, so that it can be managed later
> (perhaps via something else than NM).
The later management would depend on what is there on the system. Gnome
and Xfce will both bring NM with them. I don't know what KDE and LXDE
have. Without a DE there is only /e/n/i. So I would say offering a
connection by default might be a little more useful. However, it's
only an extra key press away so I'm not prepared to argue the point
further.
> > I did try your image (put on a USB stick with cat) with an expert install
> > but did not get any questions asked at the finishing stage.
>
> I don't know what to say about this, in theory the question should be
> shown sometime after the one requesting reboot.
You could call me foolish or lazy. :) I assumed the traditional last
screen really was the last screen. Too many years of using d-i is the
excuse I offer. But wouldn't the question be better asked before the
invitation to remove the installation medium and reboot?
Also, I pressed the 'back' button. The machine rebooted anyway. Leaving
me with only lo in /e/n/i as I hadn't deselected the third option. :)
Reply to: