Re: Buster without systemd?
On Wed 25 Mar 2020 at 08:22:33 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > I don't want a desktop. In fact, wicd doesn't even need X, as it can
> > run quite happily on a VC to configure a new AP.
> >
>
> I did not tell you what you want. You just complained there is no interface.
I didn't *complain* that systemd-networkd hadn't got an interface—I just
said that I needed one, which is why I've carried on using wicd. There
are occasions when time is of the essence in configuring a wireless
connection, which is why I consider it of overriding importance.
> > When I return to somewhere I have been before, wicd (the daemon)
> > usually connects before I have typed my passphrase to unlock /home.
> > (That assumes I'm logging in.)
>
> I gave up on the Gnome spooks many years ago. But AFAIK wicd is the same or
> similar as network-manager - well the GNome/GTK way of doing things.
Sorry, I don't want a DE, I don't use one, and I don't know anything
about the "Gnome way of doing things", so I'll refrain from commenting
on how network-manager¹ does what it does. I thought we were discussing
systemd-networkd, hence my quotation about it from the arch wiki.
To be fair, I haven't tried to set up systemd-networkd for the
reason given. Sometimes I've left machines as installed, with
ifupdown running the show (not my laptops). Eventually, though,
I usually end of installing wicd regardless, when I find I can't
communicate with it remotely—wicd just seems better at bringing
and keeping the networking up.
¹ I'll opine that its name is unfortunate—rather like inventing a
currency and calling it "Currency" or "Money".
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: