On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:41:22AM +0200, to...@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! 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. This often resultet in some "hacked" setups when (semi-)information from the internet resulted in unstable configurations, leading to more inaccurate information, when those results where shared online. But since buster, if you trust the work and knowledge of the package maintainers N-M results in reliable network configurations when we are talking about a default desktop setup. Most issues here are mainly related to propietary drivers from various chip manufacturers and not an N-M issue. 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. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com
