arch linux has netcfg, which I use. it, like wicd, can be a little
warty, but the whole thing is written in bash and doesn't require a
UI. adding network profiles is done through editing conf files in
/etc/network.d/
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Netcfg
-w
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM
>
>Hi, all.I wanted to ask for an advice.
>
>Being a laptop user, I have to swtich between wireless networks quite
>frequently, and often I have to connect to the new networks. So, I am
>in need of a tool that would allow me to automatize the whole routine:
>provide me with a list of networks, allo
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> I just wpa_supplicant, but I don't think it would work that well with
> switching between wireless networks while running. If you are generally
> shutting down your laptop between network switches then wpa_supplicant alone
> should work fi
> well I'm on openbsd. ifconfig is used for everything.
Well, that changes pretty much everything. OpenBSD's ifconfig is probably a
unique thing among other BSDs (AFAIK) and is nothing like Linux's ifconfig. And
it's much simpler to use than iwconfig+wpa_supplicant in Linux. However, there
are
Ah, I stand corrected. On linux iwconfig is reponsible for connecting to
wilreless networks.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Josh Rickmar wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 07:30:36PM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> > ifconfig doesn't work on wireless networks, but assuming you mean
> iwconfig,
>
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 07:30:36PM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> ifconfig doesn't work on wireless networks, but assuming you mean iwconfig,
> well that doesn't work with WPA encryption. And neither of them is
> automatic.
well I'm on openbsd. ifconfig is used for everything.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 07:30:36PM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
ifconfig doesn't work on wireless networks, but assuming you mean iwconfig,
well that doesn't work with WPA encryption. And neither of them is
automatic.
ifconfig works on wireless networks. At least, it does on BSD.
--
Kris Magl
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 03:01:24AM +0400, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
The current options that I am aware of:
1. Networkmanager - ties a lot of dependencies and is not quite stable
I've never been able to get it to work, and it didn't really
even seem like a good idea, to begin with.
2. wicd - h
ifconfig doesn't work on wireless networks, but assuming you mean iwconfig,
well that doesn't work with WPA encryption. And neither of them is
automatic.
I just wpa_supplicant, but I don't think it would work that well with
switching between wireless networks while running. If you are generally
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 03:01:24AM +0400, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
> Hi, all.I wanted to ask for an advice.
>
> Being a laptop user, I have to swtich between wireless networks quite
> frequently, and often I have to connect to the new networks. So, I am in need
> of a tool that would allow me to au
Hi, all.I wanted to ask for an advice.
Being a laptop user, I have to swtich between wireless networks quite
frequently, and often I have to connect to the new networks. So, I am in need
of a tool that would allow me to automatize the whole routine: provide me with
a list of networks, allow me
On 29 May 2010, at 23:29, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
You mean, install is just meant as a wrapper around the standard
tools
to express the actions in a more compact way. (btw: It's a shame that
install isn't a shell script then.)
Well. why isn't man(1) a shell-script? And what about the dozens of
> You mean, install is just meant as a wrapper around the standard
> tools
> to express the actions in a more compact way. (btw: It's a shame that
> install isn't a shell script then.)
Well. why isn't man(1) a shell-script? And what about the dozens of other
tools which could be trivially implem
On 29 May 2010, at 23:20, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
On 29 May 2010, at 22:56, markus schnalke wrote:
You mean, install is just meant as a wrapper around the standard
tools
to express the actions in a more compact way. (btw: It's a shame that
install isn't a shell script then.)
Autoconf
On 29 May 2010, at 22:56, markus schnalke wrote:
You mean, install is just meant as a wrapper around the standard tools
to express the actions in a more compact way. (btw: It's a shame that
install isn't a shell script then.)
Autoconf'd packages usually include install-sh for systems which do
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:56:26PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
[2010-05-29 23:46] Moritz Wilhelmy
> Very often I see makefile use install(1) when cp, mkdir, chmod, and
> Co. would be equally compact.
Consider
install -D -m755 -u foo -g bar foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
vs.
mkdir -p $DESTDIR/usr
[2010-05-29 23:46] Moritz Wilhelmy
> > Very often I see makefile use install(1) when cp, mkdir, chmod, and
> > Co. would be equally compact.
>
> Consider
>
> install -D -m755 -u foo -g bar foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
>
> vs.
>
> mkdir -p $DESTDIR/usr/bin
> cp foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
> chmod 755 $D
> Very often I see makefile use install(1) when cp, mkdir, chmod, and
> Co. would be equally compact.
Consider
install -D -m755 -u foo -g bar foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
vs.
mkdir -p $DESTDIR/usr/bin
cp foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
chmod 755 $DESTDIR/usr/bin/foo.sh
chown foo:bar $DESTDIR/usr/bin/foo.sh
Very often I see makefile use install(1) when cp, mkdir, chmod, and
Co. would be equally compact.
Is there any reason why someone should use install(1) instead of the
standard Unix tools?
Install(1) isn't available everywhere and AFAIR there are incompatible
versions, too. There are several reaso
2010/5/29 Kris Maglione :
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 07:59:39PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>> On 29 May 2010 19:17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29 May 2010 18:18, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
The getfullscreen bit is
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 07:59:39PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
On 29 May 2010 19:17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
On 29 May 2010 18:18, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
The getfullscreen bit is probably not necessary in most cases. The rest of
th
On 29 May 2010 19:17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 29 May 2010 18:18, Kris Maglione wrote:
>> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> The getfullscreen bit is probably not necessary in most cases. The rest of
>> the clientmessage function is a hack, because I don't know t
On 29 May 2010 18:18, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I created two bugfix releases:
>>
>> http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.1.tar.gz
>> http://dl.suckless.org/tools/dmenu-4.1.1.tar.gz
>>
>> The dwm release reverts the
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hi there,
I created two bugfix releases:
http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.1.tar.gz
http://dl.suckless.org/tools/dmenu-4.1.1.tar.gz
The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
only made chromium to accept
2010/5/29 Marvin Vek :
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
>> only made chromium to accept F11 requests, but broke mplayer and
>> didn't really fix the flash fullscreen issue, which is still
>> unres
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
> only made chromium to accept F11 requests, but broke mplayer and
> didn't really fix the flash fullscreen issue, which is still
> unresolved. I don't really mind to
On 29 May 2010 14:27, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I created two bugfix releases:
>>
>> http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.1.tar.gz
>> http://dl.suckless.org/tools/dmenu-4.1.1.tar.gz
>>
>> The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen su
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hi there,
I created two bugfix releases:
http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.1.tar.gz
http://dl.suckless.org/tools/dmenu-4.1.1.tar.gz
The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
only made chromium to accept
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
> only made chromium to accept F11 requests, but broke mplayer and
> didn't really fix the flash fullscreen issue, which is still
> unresolved. I don't really mind to
Hi there,
I created two bugfix releases:
http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.1.tar.gz
http://dl.suckless.org/tools/dmenu-4.1.1.tar.gz
The dwm release reverts the EWMH fullscreen support. Apparently it
only made chromium to accept F11 requests, but broke mplayer and
didn't really fix the flash
Hi there,
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:59:55AM +0200, ilf wrote:
> Yup, mplayer fullscreen is broken.
>
> Antoni Grzymala wrote:
>> This must be very recent breakage, as I've been on running on hg tip
>> for the last weeks/months and only after today's checkout this turned
>> to be broken.
>
> I g
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 20:52:06 -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> They've worked out the problem on the dash list. The following patch
> *should* fix your script. Alternatively, you could try the version
> attached with wmii tip.
Thanks for the scripts, Kris! Thomas
32 matches
Mail list logo
