[rad] Re: SOLVED Re: pseudo-newbie exec scripts and session-time

[Charles Gregory]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk wrote:
> one of the main issues is using a distro version of the code.

(nod) Once John mentioned a folder I just didn't have, the light came on 
(so to speak).... :)

> ...they might have been dumped into somewhere like /usr/share/doc/radiusd
> or somesuch.

(smile) Nope. But good thought.
Strictly speaking, all the information I needed was in the various
documentation files. I just made an error of presumption from the 'look'
of the code and examples and comments in the 'radiusd.conf' file....

> you can get v2.x for CentOS - read the WIKI - theres a repository for
> it too so it will get updated with new versions.

Well, if I had been unable to make the existing package work, it was 
certainly an option. But it's better the way I have it now. :)

> as for 'marking you down as yet another stubborn user' - well I thought
> by singularly attacking the project leaader/manager you were wanting to
> be thought of like that ;-)

I hope I don't set off another round of garbage with this comment, but 
quite honestly, he has an attitude I've never seen in a project leader. 
Usually they are the ones who have had years of experience dealing with 
newbies and *know* the stupid 2+2=3 mistakes that people like me can make, 
and would be the first one to say, "hey, dummy, that goes in the users 
file". But instead, I got..... what I got.....

I work in a similar capacity being both the developer/admin for our
internet service *and* the helpdesk. And the one thing I've learned in 
dealing with people on the phone is how differently all sorts of people 
will think, and how difficult some concepts are to get across even when 
they seem 'simple' and 'obvious' to me. It takes some time and patience, 
but I've learned to recognize the signs of the user who 'thinks 
differently' and know those special things I need to mention to get them 
back 'on track', and get them thinking the right way.

> seriously though, most (if not all) support will be for 2.x now - as 
> thats what most of us run - due to wanting the features, stability and 
> speed (yes, lots of speed!) of the new version. we all used to run 1.x 
> and deal with common/similar issues....we now run 2.x and do the same.

If I had 'issues' (aka problems) I would quite simply upgrade. It would 
not be worth my time or effort to try and fight with problematic old code. 
But FR is *not* problematic. It was just my understanding. I needed to 
know *how* to do what I wanted to do. It's always been my ignorance.
And I've not asked anyone to 'hand hold'. I just figured there had to be 
some working examples out there from the 1.x days.

> .... with EAP, 2.x is almost a must (unless you want your DB etc hit far 
> too many times).

In all honesty, I don't even know what 'EAP' is. Maybe it could handle
some of what I want to do. I don't know. I have an existing perl script 
which until now has been functioning strictly as a stand-alone daemon 
handling radius log output, and sending disconnect commands directly to 
the NAS. Now we want to set Session-Timeout and eliminate that 'timing' 
aspect of the script. But all the database handling, time quota management 
and so on are already coded. I'm just adapting an existing script to work 
as a module.

And I've figured out how radius handles that, so I think I'm okay.
The rest of this discussion generally boils down to the helpdesk geek in 
me analyzing why the people with the knowledge couldn't seem to 
communicate that knowledge clearly to the newbie ignoramus (me).
If I were genuinely lazy and hadn't read a single doc file, then maybe
there would be a legitimate complaint that I should 'go read docs', but I 
indicated right up front that I had read docs, searched archives and so 
on. I was hoping someone would say "did you look in the doc/README" or 
something similar that would point me to the doc with the information that 
I needed. But it didn't happen. (sigh)

But if people (particularly Mr. DeKok) are going to have this attitude 
that amounts to "we tried to help but you ignored us" then I think that 
serves no one. The next person along with the same lack of comprehension 
will be no better helped than I was. But if the people with the knowledge 
admit that their 'help' did not suit the target audience, and that it 
needs to be clearer and more specific, then future inquiries like mine 
will be met with a clearer and helpful response.

That's what I hope for. That people who mean to help really do help.
I have my answer. My problem is solved. I can jsut walk away. But that 
doesn't help the next person who falls over the same shortfall in the old 
docs. If nothing else, I will be here to help them if I see their post. :)

- Charles