SEO

I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really want to
get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because wireless
in XP kicks Linux butt. Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must. Please do
not make it a religious war, but a wish for Linux. Thanks.

=) Joe (= wrote:

> I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really want to
> get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because
> wireless
> in XP kicks Linux butt. Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must. Please do
> not make it a religious war, but a wish for Linux.

Have you actually tried WiFi under Linux?
What card do you have?
What Linux distribution are you using?
Etc, etc.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"=) Joe (=" <joeyh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsad8e.1585$JJ2.1218@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...
>I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really want to
>get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because
>wireless in XP kicks Linux butt. Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must.
>Please do not make it a religious war, but a wish for Linux. Thanks.


I have to disagree with your

>wireless in XP kicks Linux butt

That , I am afraid is pure nonsense. You simply have to know what kit to
buy.

d.

=) Joe (= wrote:

[c.o.l, c.o.l.r and alt.ngs snipped -- sorry. I'm on a google/flame
diet;]

> I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really
want to
> get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because
wireless
> in XP kicks Linux butt. ...

In what sense and according to whom? My bet is that if it's XP users
making this claim, no amount of Linux "does Windows" will satisfy them.
Their "Linux don't cut it" claims are just a knee jerk excuse. Get
over it and move on.

> ... Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must. ...

Linux has _nothing_ to bow to Windows re: these two, all but useless,
security features. If the driver is available, these features are
fully supported. If users are complaining on these points, move on to
greener pastures.

If your users are talking about wireless authentication, just tell 'em
to fork over for W2K3 Server (and several large consultant bills) and
let them keep wearing that SEG. Viruses/worms by wireless are just as
much fun as they are over the wire.

> ... Please do
> not make it a religious war, but a wish for Linux. Thanks.

You've probably picked one of the few areas where Linux and Linux
drivers are demonstrably _more_ adequate than Windows. Where there is
no (or only an old) driver available, well, you/they will just have to
wait. Or upgrade to today's incredibly expensive new equipment.

If it's a gui interface issue, don't bother waiting. Why do it as
baddly as Windows. I _hate_ trying to set up/debug a Windows wireless
"solution". When it works, great. When it don't, you're almost SOL.

Not to mention that as a large number (greastest number in use?) of
wireless APs are _running_ an embedded Linux version, you'll have a
_really_ difficult time convincing folks around here that there is any
"reality" to Win uses' technology complaints. Hmmm ... must be that
gui thingy againy.

Most wireless APs today use/offer a http configuration interface, so
that's not the problem. Are we talking desktop gui tools?

On the client side, the set up gui/tools _are_ often different (and
even _easier_, IME), so it's not clear precisely _what_ are the nature
of your (or your clients') complaints. Care to expand/clarify?
There's probably an answer to be had.

These are not the ramblings of a "religious bigot", so don't respond to
them as such. I _very_ frequently suggest MS "solutions" for my
clients (given their attitudes and circumstances). If you have noted
_specific_ shortcomings, then spell them out. You might (probably do)
have some valid concerns/points, especially re: end user "ease of use"
issues that are _not_ illusory, "it works, it must be reliable/secure"
marketing crap stuff.

Many wireless solutions are primarily(?) started as laptop/mobile
solutions, and in that regard, I don't think you'll get any experienced
Linux user/deployer that doesn't moan. But that's a _direct_ result of
the laptop makers/parts suppliers, not Linux (and nothing much the
Linux community can do about it). This is more an OEM/preload issue
for makers, IMO. And MS has those guys (including Intel) by the short
hairs. Got scissors?

m2c's
prg

Dude - shut the hell up with your Linux zealot postings - I am both a
windows user and a Linux user - so I can tell you that the Linux way is aLOt
more manual - I can at least admit the shortcoming of Linux in wireless as a
Linux user. I use both OS because they provide efficiency in certain
tasks - XP defintely outshines Linux in that area for users. WPA / WPE
configuration is like 10-15 minutes setup in Linux and 1 minute in XP. If
you have never done this yourself - shut the FUCK up.



"prg" <rdgentry1@cablelynx.com> wrote in message
news:1113692168.809788.289270@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> =) Joe (= wrote:
>
> [c.o.l, c.o.l.r and alt.ngs snipped -- sorry. I'm on a google/flame
> diet;]
>
>> I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really
> want to
>> get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because
> wireless
>> in XP kicks Linux butt. ...
>
> In what sense and according to whom? My bet is that if it's XP users
> making this claim, no amount of Linux "does Windows" will satisfy them.
> Their "Linux don't cut it" claims are just a knee jerk excuse. Get
> over it and move on.
>
>> ... Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must. ...
>
> Linux has _nothing_ to bow to Windows re: these two, all but useless,
> security features. If the driver is available, these features are
> fully supported. If users are complaining on these points, move on to
> greener pastures.
>
> If your users are talking about wireless authentication, just tell 'em
> to fork over for W2K3 Server (and several large consultant bills) and
> let them keep wearing that SEG. Viruses/worms by wireless are just as
> much fun as they are over the wire.
>
>> ... Please do
>> not make it a religious war, but a wish for Linux. Thanks.
>
> You've probably picked one of the few areas where Linux and Linux
> drivers are demonstrably _more_ adequate than Windows. Where there is
> no (or only an old) driver available, well, you/they will just have to
> wait. Or upgrade to today's incredibly expensive new equipment.
>
> If it's a gui interface issue, don't bother waiting. Why do it as
> baddly as Windows. I _hate_ trying to set up/debug a Windows wireless
> "solution". When it works, great. When it don't, you're almost SOL.
>
> Not to mention that as a large number (greastest number in use?) of
> wireless APs are _running_ an embedded Linux version, you'll have a
> _really_ difficult time convincing folks around here that there is any
> "reality" to Win uses' technology complaints. Hmmm ... must be that
> gui thingy againy.
>
> Most wireless APs today use/offer a http configuration interface, so
> that's not the problem. Are we talking desktop gui tools?
>
> On the client side, the set up gui/tools _are_ often different (and
> even _easier_, IME), so it's not clear precisely _what_ are the nature
> of your (or your clients') complaints. Care to expand/clarify?
> There's probably an answer to be had.
>
> These are not the ramblings of a "religious bigot", so don't respond to
> them as such. I _very_ frequently suggest MS "solutions" for my
> clients (given their attitudes and circumstances). If you have noted
> _specific_ shortcomings, then spell them out. You might (probably do)
> have some valid concerns/points, especially re: end user "ease of use"
> issues that are _not_ illusory, "it works, it must be reliable/secure"
> marketing crap stuff.
>
> Many wireless solutions are primarily(?) started as laptop/mobile
> solutions, and in that regard, I don't think you'll get any experienced
> Linux user/deployer that doesn't moan. But that's a _direct_ result of
> the laptop makers/parts suppliers, not Linux (and nothing much the
> Linux community can do about it). This is more an OEM/preload issue
> for makers, IMO. And MS has those guys (including Intel) by the short
> hairs. Got scissors?
>
> m2c's
> prg
>

Jonathan P. wrote:
> Dude - shut the hell up with your Linux zealot postings - I am both a
> windows user and a Linux user - so I can tell you that the Linux way is aLOt
> more manual - I can at least admit the shortcoming of Linux in wireless as a
> Linux user. I use both OS because they provide efficiency in certain
> tasks - XP defintely outshines Linux in that area for users. WPA / WPE
> configuration is like 10-15 minutes setup in Linux and 1 minute in XP. If
> you have never done this yourself - shut the FUCK up.

I've done it.
It's also a minute to configure wpa_supplicant in Linux.
And you can copy the config file to a bunch of machines.
If you want to do the same with XP you have to do it clicking
and clicking on each machine.

So configuring WPA/PEAP in Linux is not as hard. Maybe is not
as easy as in XP, but knowing how to do it is just a minute.

Regards.

--

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jkerouac@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"

Spake =\) Joe \(=:
> I hope to see Wireless in Linux get a major boost soon - I really want to
> get away from Windows XP SP2 for my clients but they resist because wireless
> in XP kicks Linux butt. Ease of use in WPA and WEP is a must.

Well, Joe, here is what you can do: get in contact with the 802.11
driver and/or application maintainers, and offer to

- write or maintain code
- test code, especially
- submitting good bug reports
- testing development versions
- financial support, such as
- donating money to the project
- paying the developer(s) to keep developing
- offering a bounty for features you want
- hardware support, that is
- giving the developers the same hardware you use, so
they can test it.

You can also

- write to hardware manufacturers asking them to publish
information about the internals of their products.

Of course, you probably don't have the resources to do some of these
things. That's OK. Just remember that if you want something bad
enough, you PERSONALLY can make a difference as to how quickly and how
well it gets implemented.

You don't have to say "if only my vendor would do such-and-such". You
can say "Bob, I really want such-and-such. What can I do to help you
deliver it?"

--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
The key is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to
even write a crime report about them.
-- Aubrey, Something Positive

In the thread "Wireless in Linux needs HELP", Trent Buck stated:

> - write to hardware manufacturers asking them to publish
> information about the internals of their products.

I fully understand why companies would want to gain an advantage by
releasing their hardware products with features that improve on the
competition. I do not understand why a large majority of these
companies wish to hide the details of how to interface with their product.

Certainly these companies write their own interface for their target
(e.g. Microsoft Windows, Macintosh) but why not release the details so
that other developers can quickly and easily write software for the
unsupported target (e.g. legacy machines, Linux).

In doing so,the product can potentially be used by a larger customer
base which would then increase sales, which of course would increase
profit. Or perhaps my understanding of business disallows me to see the
reasons why.

Would someone with the proper business sense (meaning I don't want
anyone's 2 cents - I'd like facts) please explain the reasoning for
companies not to release details of how to interface with their
product's internals?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:32:24 +0200 Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez <jkerouac@bgsec.com> wrote:
| Jonathan P. wrote:
|> Dude - shut the hell up with your Linux zealot postings - I am both a
|> windows user and a Linux user - so I can tell you that the Linux way is aLOt
|> more manual - I can at least admit the shortcoming of Linux in wireless as a
|> Linux user. I use both OS because they provide efficiency in certain
|> tasks - XP defintely outshines Linux in that area for users. WPA / WPE
|> configuration is like 10-15 minutes setup in Linux and 1 minute in XP. If
|> you have never done this yourself - shut the FUCK up.
|
| I've done it.
| It's also a minute to configure wpa_supplicant in Linux.
| And you can copy the config file to a bunch of machines.
| If you want to do the same with XP you have to do it clicking
| and clicking on each machine.
|
| So configuring WPA/PEAP in Linux is not as hard. Maybe is not
| as easy as in XP, but knowing how to do it is just a minute.

So, in other words, it's not as easy for a bunch of Windows users who
can't or won't be bothered to learn something new.

How well Linux will fit in a multi-user business environment depends a
lot on how that environment operates. If the work of configuring each
computer is handled by the local network administrator, or the IT dept,
or such, Linux can more readily be used because the end users won't have
to learn as much new stuff. OTOH, if end users have to deal with all
the details from installing the OS to configuring every device, then you
can be sure they will resist any and all changes since there will be so
much more new stuff to learn all at once.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> So, in other words, it's not as easy for a bunch of Windows users who
> can't or won't be bothered to learn something new.

Yes. But configuring a Linux Supplicant is quite easy, so the only
reason I find to justify the distributions are not doing it
automatically like any other network card is that is a quite new
technology, and that the Wifi cards support is somehow dispersed.

Regards.

--

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jkerouac@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"