On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 10:14 -0400, warlord wrote: > Dan, you keep conflating two issues which are not the same. You seem to be > confusing "network exists at startup" from "network changes from under > you". I'm concerned about the former, you seem to talking about the > latter. I would conflate the two as well, since to me (as a software developer) it seems that if you can handle the latter, the former is easy. > Most applications fail harder if there's no network when they start, but will > deal much better if the network changes from under them. Really? What applications? And why is it so much harder to handle no-network-at-start? > Why should wireless networks be treated differently than wired networks > in terms > of when they are started? They aren't treated differently in the design really, just the implementation detail makes wired networks start earlier in the boot process. Depending on that implementation detail is a bug.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part