NetworkManager and RT2500
Dennis J Perkins
dennisjperkins at comcast.net
Sat Feb 21 09:35:57 PST 2009
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 17:24 +0000, richard.melville at ntlworld.com wrote:
> > I'm trying to get NetworkManager to work with an RT2500 wireless chip. I found that the rt2500.ko module won't work with it at all. Apparently that is a legacy driver? The rt2500pci.ko partially works, because NetworkManager is able to activate wlan0, and it can see the WAP because it displays the WAP and signal strength. The problem is that it cannot get an IP address.
> > I have dhcdbd running. Apparently this program sits waiting for a program to signal that it needs an IP address and then it asks the DHCP server for one.
> > NetworkManager is starting WPA Supplicant. I don't need it because I am trying to set up a WEP connection. I know, it's not secure, but I have a machine that won't do WPA.
> > I can set up a connection manually using rt2500.ko, but I am giving this computer to someone and NetworkManager would be easier for them to use.
> Hmmm, NetworkManager problems again. There seem to be a number of issues here. You don't say why your machine doesn't support WPA. Is it the wireless router?. If it is it must be very old. It can't be the adapter because I had an RT2500 adapter running with WPA encryption recently, but it continually dropped the connection. I only build static kernels, and I think it was the kernel driver causing the problem. Maybe the latest serialmonkey driver would have performed better, but I've ditched the adapter now in favour of an Atheros 5008 Draft N. This works really well with the latest kernel and the ath9k driver.
> I'm not sure why you think that the person you are going to give your computer to will fare any better with NetworkManager than you are. You say that you can set up the connection manually, so why not do that but with the future owners network details.
> At the risk of merging two threads; Simon -- thanks for the reply. Maybe I expressed myself badly. I wasn't suggesting that dbus and hal were not important tools; of course they are, but just because we have them doesn't mean that we have to invoke them for everything. Clearly, a large and complex network with users coming and going demands a different approach. My call for simplicity related to a small, one or two desktop setup. I certainly wasn't prescribing how people should set up their wireless networks -- after all, surely the whole ethos of LFS/BLFS is to do your own thing. I was just trying to promote a simple alternative for a simple setup.
Someone else on my wireless network has a computer that can't do WPA. I
also don't know if my friend will need WEP.
If I can't get NM working, I will set the computer up the old way.But I
will try to get it working first.
More information about the blfs-support