Ubuntu needs feedback on some possible major WiFi changes

I've been using iwd on all my devices for the last year, it seems better to me

wpa_supplicant works with EAP, at least for eduroam(the worldwide federated university WiFi network). At least when used through network manager, unless Ubuntu has something hardwired to take care of that edge case

Quoting: Pikolowpa_supplicant works with EAP, at least for eduroam(the worldwide federated university WiFi network). At least when used through network manager, unless Ubuntu has something hardwired to take care of that edge case

EAP is not an edge case. EAP is important for WPS too. So any wireless network controller that does not support authentication through EAP should not be used.
What I do miss though is WPS-push-button.
WPS is probably the only technique that securely can give any client a random 256 bit password.
<RANT>Okay, now we get tons of people that don't know WPS saying how insecure it is. It is not. There is only one variant of WPS that's insecure and that's the let's print a code on the device. Which goes directly against security. And most access points do not give a client a random 256 bit password, they give a shared password.
So WPS is absolutely more secure than a PSK when combined with openwrt.</RANT>

Anyway: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Iwd#Connect_to_a_network_using_WPS/WSC
it works it seems..

And eap for eduroam: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Iwd#EAP-PWD

Quoting: HoriWould switching to iwd change my life in any significant way? Or is it just small improvements in the background that make sense and a difference when being rolled out to the masses but on an individual level not so much?

I'm just curious, I'm not on Ubuntu anyway.

I would say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it in this case, but if you ever find yourself configuring wpa_supplicant manually, switch and don't look back, I swear that thing would just periodically break to hassle me for no apparent reason, if not upon further investigation, I'd find it was really due to... [insert obscure reason here], and really haven't had to give it a second thought since switching to iwd which is really how it should be.

That said, I'm just using PSK at this point and I do know the equally frustrating hassle of trying to configure some crazy EAP thing in config files so, in that case you'd maybe be better off not switching until it's fully supported by NetworkManager or whatever config tool you're using supports it as well. Probably the question Ubuntu will be answering here, does it support most user configs well enough and that idk, but all else equal it definitely seems to be an improvement other ways I can tell.

Plays nicer with systemd-networkd and dbus for sure, or no other config service at all since it can handle basic DHCP, just maybe not fancy things like "use ISP's DNS but enforce DNSSEC so at least i know they aren't evilly changing records"

I don't like the way this all sounds like it's already such a done deal, a fait accompli; like it's not a matter of if Ubuntu's going to move to iwd, but only a matter of when.

It would be one thing if this Lukas Märdian were asking users to test out iwd because it was being considered as a replacement for wpa_supplicant. Fine, let's give it a shot. But that's not what Lukas is asking at all. Lukas is asking users to see if iwd is "ready for prime time," that is, if it's ready to become Ubuntu's new default.

Why is this even happening? Iwd isn't better than wpa_supplicant. There's no promise that it ever will be better. There's just some vague hand-waving and talk of "potential."

Does Canonical make these decisions using a Magic 8-ball?

QuoteQuestion: "O Magic 8-ball, should we make our own mobile phone from scratch?"

*shake, shake, shake*

Answer: "Signs point to yes."

Is iwd even open source?

I love Ubuntu, but gawds it makes me crazy sometimes.


Last edited by Nanobang on 14 August 2020 at 2:11 pm UTC

Quoting: NanobangIs iwd even open source?

Of course it is. And it has been in your repositories for quite some time already. It's just not installed as default. You can find more about here for example

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/wireless/iwd.git/about/

Quoting: NanobangIs iwd even open source?

I love Ubuntu, but gawds it makes me crazy sometimes.

It wouldn't have a damn git repo on kernel.org if it wasn't open source, now would it? Took like ten seconds to check.

The reason there hasn't been much debate about this is because iwd is simply better than wpa_supplicant, and the only question is if it's ready for prime time. That's why Canonical is looking for feedback. Note that this isn't a Canonical project. They've had their NIH moments, but this isn't one of them.

Check out the iwd wiki for more info unless you'd rather just shout at Canonical to get off your lawn. ;)

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: NanobangIs iwd even open source?

I love Ubuntu, but gawds it makes me crazy sometimes.

Quoting: tuubiIt wouldn't have a damn git repo on kernel.org if it wasn't open source, now would it?

Frankly, I don't know.

I did follow links there from Liam's article; I know nothing about kernel.org --- and really, still don't; though I looked at the page you linked. I didn't see anything about what license iwd was or wasn't being released under, I made no decisions one way or another. What I did see on that page, at the very top was:

QuoteCopyright (C) 2013-2019 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.

Quoting: tuubiiwd is simply better than wpa_supplicant

Thanks for telling me that, I'll just take your word for that then, shall I? Because Lukas Märdian's post quite clearly states that iwd hasn't even fully reached feature parity with wpa_supplicant, that iwd merely offers "potential benefits" over wpa_supplicant. I didn't say iwd isn't better, just that that's not what's being stated.

Quoting: tuubiNote that this isn't a Canonical project.

Yeah, I got that it's Intel's thing, but the decision to use it is being made by the same Canonical cum Ubuntu crew that's given us all those previous NIH moments you mentioned.


Last edited by Nanobang on 16 August 2020 at 2:54 pm UTC

Quoting: NanobangWhat I did see on that page, at the very top was:

QuoteCopyright (C) 2013-2019 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.

Intel has created and owns the copyright to the iwd codebase, but the actual license is GPL 2.1.