anda_skoa wrote:
I strongly disagree.
Choosing th weakest possible option as the default is what got Microsoft into the security mess they are in now.
It leads to bad practice because after some time even developers forget about the existance of these security facilities.

Moreover, consequences of weak security are unfortunately not restricted to the users chosing that path for convenience. The lax or almost non existant access proctection on Windows (though this has been greately improved by recent versions) has had serious impact on infrastructure shared with everyone else, e.g. the Internet (spam, botnets, etc).

So maybe the introduction screen of KWallet's first time setup should better explain that choosing a password will require to enter it once per session.

No, maybe it would be better if Kwallet was an option rather than a requirement. One single user laptops (and frankly who in their right mind would want to use networkmanager on a permanently wired desktop) manipulation of different APs may be required, which WICD handles simply and quickly. I simply cannot understand the need for passwords that are not wanted, it is merely an intrusion. While networkmanager is linked in this way to KWallet, I will not use it; that and the fact it is broken half of the time, like every time there is an update

anda_skoa wrote:This is indeed strange.

It seems to be very specific to the kind of network setup in use, i.e. wired and wireless work fine, dialing based (GSM, DSL, etc) seem to be problematic.

Cheers,
_

Again no, I only used this for wireless, not for dialling based connections, and networkmanager is, in this case either broken or forever asking for a password, the frustration of these makes me uninstall it at the first opportunity.

The KDE wallet and the Knetworkmanager really have to be changed and have to be mixed.KDE is full of pleasure,experience and also danger.Not only because of its open,but also because of its unstable.A hacker can get into the bottom of the KDE code easily,and it's why it is not stable like windows(of course it is because windows is a businessly OS ,it is a variation of the information BUSINESS,but not a pure operating software).I think the linux should be more carefully on the open side,and KDE should be more carefully and abconstiencious.

Having security related software closed source doesn't mean it is more secure. Quite the opposite. Only if more people review the code it can get more secure, because leaks tend to be found more fast.

And how should some dangerous code come into the core of KDE code without being reviewed by the whole community or just the maintainers?