Discussion:
Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
(too old to reply)
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-24 05:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Robert Wong via arch-general
2017-07-24 05:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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
Martin Kühne via arch-general
2017-07-24 05:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
<arch-***@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
Eli Schwartz
2017-07-24 11:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/24/2017 01:50 AM, Martin KÃŒhne 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
Martin Kühne via arch-general
2017-07-24 12:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Apologies for appearing unaware of both the presence and/or
hideousness of netctl.

cheers!
mar77i
Ralf Mardorf
2017-07-24 14:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-24 16:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 workin
ITwrx.org
2017-07-24 07:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-24 07:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 m
Bennett Piater
2017-07-24 07:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On July 24, 2017 9:36:39 AM GMT+02:00, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <arch-***@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
Jelle van der Waa
2017-07-24 09:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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
Ryan Petris via arch-general
2017-07-24 09:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 <***@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 <
> arch-***@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
>
Martin Kühne via arch-general
2017-07-24 10:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Ryan Petris via arch-general
<arch-***@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
Eli Schwartz
2017-07-24 11:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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 #***@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
Robert Wong via arch-general
2017-07-24 07:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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.
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-24 07:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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.
Paul Gideon Dann via arch-general
2017-07-24 08:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24 July 2017 at 08:54, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general <
arch-***@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
Bradley Klee via arch-general
2017-07-24 08:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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-***@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.
>
Jude DaShiell
2017-07-24 11:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@archlinux.org>
> To: "arch-***@archlinux.org" <arch-***@archlinux.org>
> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <***@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-***@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.
>
>

--
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-24 11:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 <***@panix.com<mailto:***@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-***@archlinux.org>
To: "arch-***@archlinux.org" <arch-***@archlinux.org>
Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <***@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-***@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 p
Alex Theotokatos via arch-general
2017-07-24 11:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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?
Jude DaShiell
2017-07-24 11:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@archlinux.org>
> To: "arch-***@archlinux.org" <arch-***@archlinux.org>
> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <***@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 <***@panix.com<mailto:***@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-***@archlinux.org>
> To: "arch-***@archlinux.org" <arch-***@archlinux.org>
> Cc: Junayeed Ahnaf <***@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-***@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.
>
>

--
Robert Wong via arch-general
2017-07-24 12:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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-***@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.
Michael Singh via arch-general
2017-07-25 00:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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-***@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-***@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.
>
Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
2017-07-25 06:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@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-***@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-***@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
João Miguel via arch-general
2017-07-24 23:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Jude DaShiell
2017-07-25 16:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@archlinux.org>
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-***@archlinux.org>
> Cc: Jo?o Miguel <***@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
>

--
Henrik Danielsson via arch-general
2017-07-24 07:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
2017-07-24 9:36 GMT+02:00 Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
<arch-***@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.
>
Ralf Mardorf
2017-07-24 08:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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

[***@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

[***@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)
[***@archlinux rocketmouse]#

Ok, seemingly I needed the header files as a build dependency ;).

Regards,
Ralf
Damjan Georgievski via arch-general
2017-07-24 09:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24 July 2017 at 07:30, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
<arch-***@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
Loading...