Bandwidthd Package Gone?
-
I don't see the bandwidthd package in the package list anymore.
Will it be available in 2.3?
-
The jury is still out on that one. We need to focus on getting the current group of supported, popular and, active packages working well on 2.3 first, and then we can move on to other packages.
bandwidthd has a history of misbehaving and at the moment it's more trouble than it's worth to bring in, but that may change over time.
-
I was wondering the same about vnstatd. I use it for overall traffic statistics (not so much concerned about individual hosts or connections, just want to make sure my ISP's usage meters are within the realm of truth), and like the fact that it includes a much longer history than RRDsummary does.
-
I was hoping vnstat would show up as a available package also for the same reason - keeping my ISP's meter "honest"
-
The jury is still out on that one. We need to focus on getting the current group of supported, popular and, active packages working well on 2.3 first, and then we can move on to other packages.
bandwidthd has a history of misbehaving and at the moment it's more trouble than it's worth to bring in, but that may change over time.
Hi,
Like the Squid Captive Portal patch, this is another instance the perception from people of the "core team" doesn't reflect "real world use" amongst the community. Sure the package have it's problems but "popular" is highly debatable, there's a lot of people using that package to get an overall bandwidth use for each machine in the local network.
-
Like the Squid Captive Portal patch, this is another instance the perception from people of the "core team" doesn't reflect "real world use" amongst the community. Sure the package have it's problems but "popular" is highly debatable, there's a lot of people using that package to get an overall bandwidth use for each machine in the local network.
Please stop trying to push your own agenda here. Until you have access to the logs that show how many people install a package (like we do) you can't back up your claims. You can only go by what you perceive to be the truth based on what you have seen, which is not accurate. You might want it, some people might be vocal about it, but that does not translate to actual numbers of users.
If you want the bandwidthd package to show back up, help ensure the packages already on the list are working and converted and then we can move on to others.
-
Like the Squid Captive Portal patch, this is another instance the perception from people of the "core team" doesn't reflect "real world use" amongst the community. Sure the package have it's problems but "popular" is highly debatable, there's a lot of people using that package to get an overall bandwidth use for each machine in the local network.
Please stop trying to push your own agenda here. Until you have access to the logs that show how many people install a package (like we do) you can't back up your claims. You can only go by what you perceive to be the truth based on what you have seen, which is not accurate. You might want it, some people might be vocal about it, but that does not translate to actual numbers of users.
If you want the bandwidthd package to show back up, help ensure the packages already on the list are working and converted and then we can move on to others.
I only saw this posts now…
Why don't you share said logs with us then? Instead of calling BS on everyone who disagree with you?
Sorry, I saw at least 20 people complain about that Captive Portal patch being removed from Squid3, something that wasn't doing harm to anything, some people, close to you, said it was better to remove said code in order to clean the package, since "nobody was using it", see the BS here is in the "nobody" part.
OH! You say you can base package usage on logs, how can you judge usage of a setting inside a package if that is not registered in your logs? See, that's the problem I'm seeing here with packages lately, there's a lot of "I'm sure of this", then people complain about a change, the usual answer is in the lines of "You're too stupid to understand why I changed this".
Please, less ego and more understanding.
-
I saw at least 20 people complain about that Captive Portal patch being removed from Squid3, something that wasn't doing harm to anything, some people, close to you, said it was better to remove said code in order to clean the package, since "nobody was using it", see the BS here is in the "nobody" part.
We didn't remove that feature, a community member did, but it was harming people. That's why it was removed. It was badly, repeatedly patching (incorrectly in many cases) the captiveportal.inc and leaving people with broken firewalls. That is unacceptable. Use the system patches package, not an automated mechanism in squid, and it would be fine. That way it could be managed in a smarter fashion. The feature, as implemented, was broken and causing harm, thus it was removed.
The log question isn't one I can answer myself, it's above my pay grade, as they say, I suggest you make a new non-hijacked thread for that.
