Re: NM -- does it actually work?

[Derek Broughton <auspex pointerstop ca>]

On Friday 23 February 2007 15:06, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 13:56 -0500, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > wpa_supplicant is unnecessary for an open non-WPA connection anyway,
> > really.
>
> NM uses wpa_supplicant for all wireless connections, open, WEP, WPA,
> whatever.  It's just silly to have two paths for bringing up a wireless
> connection, one in NM and one in wpa_supplicant.

And it is _absolutely_ necessary.  When my wireless NIC started to get flakey, 
I was finding that wpa_supplicant was actually killing the connection (the 
hardware would lose the connection and without wpa_supplicant, it would seem 
to reconnect, but with it the device would time out before wpa_supplicant 
finished its job), but I couldn't disable wpa_supplicant at all.
-- 
derek