[arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
Hello, Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default? Thanks J
It's not *widely* accepted but just integrated with GNOME. Though NetworkManager makes the configuration of network an easier work, especially when it comes to desktop use, some features like network binding and monitor mode will be made unavailable. When it comes to ArchISO, wired network will be set up automatically. If you use wireless network, tools like wifi-menu and netctl are available, which has made things much more easier. I'd suggest you read the network configuration page on ArchWiki, which may help you understand network configuration on Linux- based operation systems better. RW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf Hello, Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default? Thanks J
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default?
Network manager actually limits users in that, when started, it plugs its own configuration atop of whatever the user is doing manually. Some features you might need are not supported like setting up a bridge, too. Additionally, the wiki [0] lists quite a list of other problems you might have from using it, so... what was the question? Why the devs choose not to include it in the default distribution? Read up on systemd-networkd [1], and if you need wifi, wpa_supplicant [2], and tell us why you still think you want to force other people to use a suboptimal solution so you don't have to figure out how simply text based, system-wide configuration by the root user is better for you... Did we not yet go into how nm needs to figure out in what ways a user is allowed to configure a system's network and therefore uses... policikit? Eww. cheers! mar77i [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NetworkManager [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-networkd [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/WPA_supplicant
On 07/24/2017 01:50 AM, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote:
Network manager actually limits users in that, when started, it plugs its own configuration atop of whatever the user is doing manually. Some features you might need are not supported like setting up a bridge, too. Additionally, the wiki [0] lists quite a list of other problems you might have from using it, so... what was the question? Why the devs choose not to include it in the default distribution?
Read up on systemd-networkd [1], and if you need wifi, wpa_supplicant [2], and tell us why you still think you want to force other people to use a suboptimal solution so you don't have to figure out how simply text based, system-wide configuration by the root user is better for you... Did we not yet go into how nm needs to figure out in what ways a user is allowed to configure a system's network and therefore uses... policikit? Eww.
This bears repeating... netctl is a hundred times worse than polkit could ever hope to be. NetworkManager too, uses "text-based, system-wide configuration by the root user", as though that were supposed to make some sort of difference. Asking people to use wpa_supplicant by hand, on the archiso, strikes me as somewhat sadistic. Mostly because the majority of people IMHO don't care about the holy purity of breaking every task up into the smallest possible pieces to do separately, by hand. I mean, we already have netctl on the archiso, therefore your advice is already silly -- no one uses wpa_supplicant by hand on the archiso to begin with. We'd just trade one (incredibly fragile, frequently malfunctioning) autoconfigurator, netctl, with another (extremely capable, rarely ever malfunctioning) autoconfigurator, NetworkManager. As always, if you really like wpa_supplicant, or prefer systemd-networkd because you're installing to a wired system, you are free to do that. No one advocated adding Networkmanager to the "base" group (although I would like netctl to be *removed* from it). -- Eli Schwartz
Apologies for appearing unaware of both the presence and/or hideousness of netctl. cheers! mar77i
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 07:47:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote:
The OP specifically asked about the archiso, not a "default installation" (of which there is, of course, none).
Good point! That was a misunderstanding. On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 07:54:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote:
Asking people to use wpa_supplicant by hand, on the archiso, strikes me as somewhat sadistic.
FWIW the OP didn't mention wifi in the original request.
So I installed arch on my laptop, wifi-menu -o worked perfectly (althought it could not find 5GHz network), so I guess we don't need to replace something that's working. Thanks everyone for your opinion.
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO?
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as
Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target. the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
On July 24, 2017 9:36:39 AM GMT+02:00, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. You are missing the point. Many arch users don't simply install a desktop environment and use its defaults. If that's what you want, you may want to use another distribution, preferably one that focuses on your DE.
I use a very minimal setup without DE, and I don't want bloated catch-all solution that doesn't integrate nicely into my configuration, thank you very much. -- GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808
On 07/24/17 at 09:40am, Bennett Piater wrote:
On July 24, 2017 9:36:39 AM GMT+02:00, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. You are missing the point. Many arch users don't simply install a desktop environment and use its defaults. If that's what you want, you may want to use another distribution, preferably one that focuses on your DE.
I use a very minimal setup without DE, and I don't want bloated catch-all solution that doesn't integrate nicely into my configuration, thank you very much.
Y'all seem to miss the point that provided on the ISO != installed on your machine. I for one, don't see a problem with networkmanager being installed on the ISO, nmtui works pretty well (as does nmcli), I'm not sure however how much the ISO size will blow up. -- Jelle van der Waa
I thought I'd point out that, if the default image doesn't meet your needs, you can always build your own <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/archiso> with the packages you want. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 5:29 AM Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
On 07/24/17 at 09:40am, Bennett Piater wrote:
On July 24, 2017 9:36:39 AM GMT+02:00, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. You are missing the point. Many arch users don't simply install a desktop environment and use its defaults. If that's what you want, you may want to use another distribution,
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: preferably one that focuses on your DE.
I use a very minimal setup without DE, and I don't want bloated
catch-all solution that doesn't integrate nicely into my configuration, thank you very much.
Y'all seem to miss the point that provided on the ISO != installed on your machine. I for one, don't see a problem with networkmanager being installed on the ISO, nmtui works pretty well (as does nmcli), I'm not sure however how much the ISO size will blow up.
-- Jelle van der Waa
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Ryan Petris via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I thought I'd point out that, if the default image doesn't meet your needs, you can always build your own <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/archiso> with the packages you want.
Are you asking those same users who aren't comfortable with configuring wpa_supplicant to bake their own archiso? Lol. cheers! mar77i
On 07/24/2017 05:29 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 07/24/17 at 09:40am, Bennett Piater wrote:
On July 24, 2017 9:36:39 AM GMT+02:00, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. You are missing the point. Many arch users don't simply install a desktop environment and use its defaults. If that's what you want, you may want to use another distribution, preferably one that focuses on your DE.
I use a very minimal setup without DE, and I don't want bloated catch-all solution that doesn't integrate nicely into my configuration, thank you very much.
Y'all seem to miss the point that provided on the ISO != installed on your machine. I for one, don't see a problem with networkmanager being installed on the ISO, nmtui works pretty well (as does nmcli), I'm not sure however how much the ISO size will blow up.
Thanks, jelle, for being the sole voice of reason here. :) The OP specifically asked about the archiso, not a "default installation" (of which there is, of course, none). For all the people here saying that NetworkManager is typically used by bloated Desktop Environments, this is of course wrong too. As jelle pointed out, nmntui/nmcli work great from a command-line environment; somewhat ironically, the network-manager-applet used by Desktop Environments is actually a *thirdparty* tool that communicates with the actual NetworkManager daemon -- if swiss-army-knife tools are your thing, NetworkManager is an amazingly capable, flexible, and powerful tool for configuring and managing any sort of network from whatever CLI or GUI environment you want. Installing the packagelist from the archiso into a chroot, then installing NetworkManager, indicates to me that on an i686 machine this would add 60 MB to the installation base, which I consider a very reasonable trade if it means getting rid of the horrible netctl. Seriously, nearly everyone knows that netctl should have died a long time ago. I am pretty sure most of the people who accidentally think netctl is somehow an okay networking tool wouldn't think so if they weren't led to believe it by its presence on the archiso; this in turn would lower the support burden on #archlinux@freenode, and quite possibly on the forums as well (though it feels like people panic over netctl-not-working on IRC more often than the forums). -- Eli Schwartz
A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*. PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux. RW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress. No need to be so aggressive man. On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote:
A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
On 24 July 2017 at 08:54, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
I get where you're coming from: wpa_supplicant is powerful, but is not particularly easy to set up manually, and I always used to groan when I had to rely on Wifi in archiso. But wifi-menu takes all the pain away: it's simple and straight-forward now. Paul
It could also be useful to compare with: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dhcpcd Considering minimalist focus of arch and use of systemd, maybe a more apt question would be: why does the installation collection include "dhcpcd"? Do not confuse me for an expert, but I think the main answer is simply a practical one. The command is easy to type and the daemon does what it needs to with reliability. Also, when defending, you should not introduce logical fallacies. Completing an installation is no proof that you've read the manual. The Arch wiki is an incredibly thorough work with many, many pages. There's always more to learn. For example, have you got a dual boot working yet? In my latest computer experiment, I instantiated Debian + Arch. This was no easy task because suggested loopback did not work with the Debian installation ISO. Even in this case, the wiki was good enough to get me most of the way to an independent solution. Thanks again wiki writers! Cheers, Brad
On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
No need to be so aggressive man.
On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
try the -o switch with wifi-menu is helpful and make sure you already have the dialog package installed before you run wifi-menu. On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:54:02 From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: "arch-general@archlinux.org" <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <nirjhor@outlook.com> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
No need to be so aggressive man.
On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote:
A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
--
How can I install dialog when I don't have wifi? Sent from BlueMail<http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=10066> On Jul 24, 2017, at 5:17 PM, Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com<mailto:jdashiel@panix.com>> wrote: try the -o switch with wifi-menu is helpful and make sure you already have the dialog package installed before you run wifi-menu. On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:54:02 From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: "arch-general@archlinux.org" <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <nirjhor@outlook.com> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress. No need to be so aggressive man. On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*. PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org<http://archlinux.org> itself runs on Arch Linux. RW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org<http://ITwrx.org> wrote: On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target. Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop. Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
On 07/24/2017 02:21 PM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
How can I install dialog when I don't have wifi? ArchIso has preinstalled the 'dialog' package. Is there an error when you give the 'wifi-menu' command?
A temporary ethernet connection in another location likely will work with sufficient download privileges. On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 07:21:49 From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: "arch-general@archlinux.org" <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <nirjhor@outlook.com> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
How can I install dialog when I don't have wifi?
Sent from BlueMail<http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=10066> On Jul 24, 2017, at 5:17 PM, Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com<mailto:jdashiel@panix.com>> wrote:
try the -o switch with wifi-menu is helpful and make sure you already have the dialog package installed before you run wifi-menu. On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:54:02 From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: "arch-general@archlinux.org" <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <nirjhor@outlook.com> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
No need to be so aggressive man.
On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org<http://archlinux.org> itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org<http://ITwrx.org> wrote: On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
--
Emm... And I'd say I'm sorry for what I've said today... RW -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress. No need to be so aggressive man. On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote:
A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
Hi what issues are you having with wpa_supplicant? Best regards, Michael M: + 1 914 266 0601
On Jul 24, 2017, at 05:42, Robert Wong via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Emm... And I'd say I'm sorry for what I've said today...
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
No need to be so aggressive man.
On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
No more issue rn, I installed with wifi-connect . The problem I was having is, even after I inputted the SSID and password in the file, the command to connect were not working. I don't have the log right now (since I installed), so I can't tell further. On 07/25/2017 06:48 AM, Michael Singh via arch-general wrote:
Hi what issues are you having with wpa_supplicant?
Best regards, Michael M: + 1 914 266 0601
On Jul 24, 2017, at 05:42, Robert Wong via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Emm... And I'd say I'm sorry for what I've said today...
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
No need to be so aggressive man.
On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which can be configured into anything. I'm not going any further for you have made yourself clear that you haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd say *RTFM*.
PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
RW
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general To: arch-general@archlinux.org CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
A 2017-07-24T07:54:02 +0000, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general escreveu:
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
That's odd, I never had any trouble with it (and damn me, I installed it 3 times in a row when I started) and with different configurations "man wpa_supplicant.conf" always helped me when I needed it (I don't use the CLI). The upside is that one only needs to configure any network once, then I can copy the details to all systems as needed. Works across various distros. Also, when people ask you the passphrase just do "grep -A2 network_name wpa_supplicant.conf". And now dhcpcd even starts wpa_supplicant on its own! It's amazing! Just my 2 cents worth of experience, João Miguel
Probably sed could be used to plug that router password into wpa_supplicant.conf very quickly. I think I can probably figure what may be a one-liner script to do that. On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Jo?o Miguel via arch-general wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:11:31 From: Jo?o Miguel via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Jo?o Miguel <jmcf125@openmailbox.org> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
A 2017-07-24T07:54:02 +0000, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general escreveu:
I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.
That's odd, I never had any trouble with it (and damn me, I installed it 3 times in a row when I started) and with different configurations "man wpa_supplicant.conf" always helped me when I needed it (I don't use the CLI).
The upside is that one only needs to configure any network once, then I can copy the details to all systems as needed. Works across various distros. Also, when people ask you the passphrase just do "grep -A2 network_name wpa_supplicant.conf".
And now dhcpcd even starts wpa_supplicant on its own! It's amazing!
Just my 2 cents worth of experience, Jo?o Miguel
--
2017-07-24 9:36 GMT+02:00 Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org>:
All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional desktop? I think it's rather high. I currently have 8 Arch machines, 5 of which are pure servers and 2 are server/desktop hybrids, one is an aging laptop which barely runs anything with a GUI. None have NM installed, most use Connman , the others 'just work' and need nothing more than the basics already there. I'm obviously not alone in finding Arch suitable for many purposes other than a desktop machine, as indicated by other replies.
On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your given install target.
Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, not only for the desktop.
Is there any reason for it not to be default? The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
Hi, my Arch install is a desktop computer connected to the Internet, but I don't use NM and actually even Evolution (the GNOME MUA) is running. I simply have two scripts, one based upon "modprobe -v pppoe; ip link set", the other based upon "dhcpcd". Currently I use the latter. I could copy those scripts to whatever Linux I want to use, to let what ever init system is used, start those scripts. One day I installed NM for testing purpose, it's still installed, but [rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ systemctl status NetworkManager.service ● NetworkManager.service - Network Manager Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/NetworkManager.service; disabled; [snip] ^^^^^^^^ NM is much to complicated for my taste. Why learning how to use rocket science for a task, that actually could be done with a few idiotproof steps instead? I even didn't notice that for my minimal Ubuntu install NM is installed at all [root@archlinux rocketmouse]# systemd-nspawn -qD /mnt/moonstudio dpkg -l | grep network-m ii network-manager-dev:amd64 1.2.6-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 amd64 network management framework (development files) [root@archlinux rocketmouse]# Ok, seemingly I needed the header files as a build dependency ;). Regards, Ralf
On 24 July 2017 at 07:30, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default?
I would say that the reason NM is not on ArchISO is becaues in the past it didn't have a simple enough support for a console UI, which made it very useless in the ArchISO text-only envrionement. Nowdays, with `nmtui` I'd say it would be ok to have it. NM has been buggy in the past, but these days, it's a great tool. -- damjan
Hi, I use arch with i3wm. Been using for around 3 years. Still lovin it. Dont really need a network manager when netctl can handle my wifi pretty nicely. Actually I prefer typing over mouse-ing, so I would always prefer a tool like netctl over mouse-driven tools such as network manager. Peace. On 07/24/2017 10:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Hello,
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default?
Thanks
J
On January 12, 2018 2:48:33 PM GMT+01:00, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
...
Actually I prefer typing over mouse-ing, so I would always prefer a tool like netctl over mouse-driven tools such as network manager.
Peace.
Hi, Command-line driven interfaces for NetworkManager exist.[1] Regards. [1]https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NetworkManager#Command_line
I can't use mouse-driven tools due to total blindness and a fine motor deficit. However, that in no way stops me from using networkmanager. I just use nmtui and if you want to set up most systems like debian or slint and slint has good accessibility nmtui brings up my wifi connection up nicely. On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general wrote:
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:48:33 From: Foxtrot Mike via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> To: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> Cc: Foxtrot Mike <fulcrummike@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
Hi,
I use arch with i3wm. Been using for around 3 years. Still lovin it. Dont really need a network manager when netctl can handle my wifi pretty nicely. Actually I prefer typing over mouse-ing, so I would always prefer a tool like netctl over mouse-driven tools such as network manager.
Peace.
On 07/24/2017 10:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
Hello,
Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? Isn't it widely accepted as the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? Is there any reason for it not to be default?
Thanks
J
--
On 01/12/2018 08:48 AM, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general wrote:
Hi,
I use arch with i3wm. Been using for around 3 years. Still lovin it. Dont really need a network manager when netctl can handle my wifi pretty nicely. Actually I prefer typing over mouse-ing, so I would always prefer a tool like netctl over mouse-driven tools such as network manager.
Please keep in mind that NetworkManager is primarily a backgrounded daemon, with two CLI reference frontends -- nmtui and nmcli. network-manager-applet, which most people think of as "NetworkManager", is actually a thirdparty GUI for NetworkManager, developed by some of the same people as a separate project. Said GUI is not even installed with networkmanager, it is a completely separate package that *depends* on networkmanager. Please learn more about your system/tools before passing judgment on them. -- Eli Schwartz
Hi, I have asked quite a few questions here myself, and received excellent guidance and help. I was in no way trying to imply the superiority of one tool over another, or of keyboard over mouse. Was just trying to add something (helpful?) to this conversation based on what I knew. It turns out what I thought to be 'network manager is not actually the network manager, as exlained by Mr Eli. Thanks for the explanation. No offence meant. And none taken. Peace. On 01/12/2018 07:57 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
On 01/12/2018 08:48 AM, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general wrote:
Hi,
I use arch with i3wm. Been using for around 3 years. Still lovin it. Dont really need a network manager when netctl can handle my wifi pretty nicely. Actually I prefer typing over mouse-ing, so I would always prefer a tool like netctl over mouse-driven tools such as network manager. Please keep in mind that NetworkManager is primarily a backgrounded daemon, with two CLI reference frontends -- nmtui and nmcli.
network-manager-applet, which most people think of as "NetworkManager", is actually a thirdparty GUI for NetworkManager, developed by some of the same people as a separate project. Said GUI is not even installed with networkmanager, it is a completely separate package that *depends* on networkmanager.
Please learn more about your system/tools before passing judgment on them.
Le 12/01/2018 à 17:25, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general a écrit :
Hi,
I have asked quite a few questions here myself, and received excellent guidance and help. I was in no way trying to imply the superiority of one tool over another, or of keyboard over mouse. Was just trying to add something (helpful?) to this conversation based on what I knew.
It turns out what I thought to be 'network manager is not actually the network manager, as exlained by Mr Eli. Thanks for the explanation.
No offence meant. And none taken.
Peace.
Well the sole issue with this is that the same Eli already answered that exact point 5 months ago (on July 24th) in that thread you bumped. ;) Regards, Bruno
Wow. I could have sworn that email was right at the top of my archlinux folder when i fired up my email client earlier today. Now it's no where. Perhaps an unlucky coincident. Peace. On 01/12/2018 09:32 PM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
Le 12/01/2018 à 17:25, Foxtrot Mike via arch-general a écrit :
Hi,
I have asked quite a few questions here myself, and received excellent guidance and help. I was in no way trying to imply the superiority of one tool over another, or of keyboard over mouse. Was just trying to add something (helpful?) to this conversation based on what I knew.
It turns out what I thought to be 'network manager is not actually the network manager, as exlained by Mr Eli. Thanks for the explanation.
No offence meant. And none taken.
Peace. Well the sole issue with this is that the same Eli already answered that exact point 5 months ago (on July 24th) in that thread you bumped. ;)
Regards, Bruno
participants (20)
-
Alex Theotokatos
-
Bennett Piater
-
bradklee＠gmail.com
-
Bruno Pagani
-
Damjan Georgievski
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Foxtrot Mike
-
Henrik Danielsson
-
ITwrx.org
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
João Miguel
-
Jude DaShiell
-
Junayeed Ahnaf
-
Khorne
-
Martin Kühne
-
Michael Singh
-
Paul Gideon Dann
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Robert Wong
-
Ryan Petris