Re: Buster without systemd? [with backtrack]
David Wright wrote:
>> But the purpose of systemd is not to give you an interface. This is
>> provided
>
> ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Here, I presume the word intended is "systemd-networkd".
> ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
>> by each desktop. Systemd will give you the low level service management -
>> AFAIK it works via dbus.
>
Well I do not know o use systemd-networkd, so your assumption is not
correct. It was meant and in the context of some kind of GUI be it CLI or X
> Here, I presume that the "network manager" that systemd
> ↓ is talking to (via dbus) is systemd-networkd,
> ↓ and *not* NetworkManager (aka network-manager).
> ↓
> ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
>> systemd <-> dbus <-> network-manager
>> |
>> network-manager-interface
>>
May be but again I do not know systemd-networkd.
If we go back you would see it was exactly about the combination of systemd
and network-manager
>> This is my understanding how it works or should work.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
This is good that you have something useful and you can work with it. Please
do not impose to others. Everybody is free to use whatever suits the needs
the best.
May be 10y ago I've used wicd several time. In my world all GTK is ... well
crap. I do not know why people want to write something like this in C, but
on the other hand if it works - it works.
Anyway this is my personal opinion. If you ask Torvald about C++ he has the
same opinion as me about C.
It is good that there are different opinions
regards
Reply to: