On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:00:47AM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:41:22AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 04:47:07PM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > And N-M is not "buggy". [...] > > > > Uh-huh. > > What a great argument! I don't care very much about N-M. It's not the kind of software I enjoy. Too complex for my taste. De gustibus... But this wasn't my point. My point was rather that it is going out on a thin limb to say a complex piece of software isn't "buggy". > But I play along. > Are there bugs filed against N-M? Yes there are! > Are there reasons why people have issues with N-M? You bet! > > Up until Jessie N-M had a lot of issues and missing features, which led to > the bad reputation of N-M. Most of these issue stem from the > mis/not - understanding of ipc mechanisms, espescially with > wpasupplicant [...] My short spat with N-M is *much* older. I wasn't aware of it until once, at a customer's premises (I had a wired connection into the customer's net) N-M saw a WiFi "out there" (it turned out to be one of those captive portals) and thought "oh, let's set the default route /that/ way"). N-M went out of the window and never ever went in again. But that's me. [...] > My comment to the OP was basically on the nebulous source (most VPN Providers) > and the generalized categorization (N-M is buggy), which I disagree with. Fair enough. Cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature