Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Is Looking At Offering Better WiFi Support By Using Intel's IWD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • loganj
    replied
    V1tol with wpa you can always specify the BSSID of the network so if you have same name for 2ghz and 5ghz with wpa you can specify the bssid of the 5ghz network and will connect to that network only

    Leave a comment:


  • Linux_Chemist
    replied
    On the default kernel for Groovy (5.8.0-16), iwd is kind of buggy. If you've got lots of settings customised, you get a connection with 'your ssid-1' as it will connect to your ssid but only if you unset any specifics like 5v2.4GHz (Band), Channel, Device MAC. Leave them all default and it connected easily enough to my 5Ghz Network and has a full signal more often. Haven't tweaked a main.conf for it yet, but it's not terrible atm, just iffy - but a far sight better than it was years ago! This is on an intel ax200 (iwlwifi) card. Performance remains good.

    Unfortunately, on my custom kernels I can't get iwd.service to actually run. It loads and is enabled, but it won't start and I'm left with 'Devices not ready' in Network Manager. It's something in the kernel I haven't got built in - had a look at the kernel dependencies (lots of crypto) https://iwd.wiki.kernel.org/gettingstarted, but no luck still. I do have ipv6 out since I can't make any use of it, it might be that. Narrowing down by comparing with ubuntu's stock kernel atm a bit more trouble than it's worth really.

    Does anyone have any suggestions for more modern kernel dependencies for iwd to run (the link mentions kernel 4.11) or where it might tell me specifically what I've not included in the kernel .config?

    EDIT: Got it working on a custom (heavily gutted) kernel. Narrowed it down to a lack of CONFIG_RFKILL. Not sure why I took rfkill out in the first place, but it's essential for iwd (or network manager + iwd) to work properly.
    Last edited by Linux_Chemist; 13 August 2020, 10:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by cynical View Post

    So then what was the alternative to upstart at the time it was introduced?
    I agree that Upstart was a good thing with practically no alternative at the time. However, the guy was right about Canonical's other NIH projects.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynical
    replied
    Originally posted by omer666
    It is not "rewriting history", it's just an interpretation of it, and to say the least, the most accurate.
    So then what was the alternative to upstart at the time it was introduced?

    Originally posted by grigi
    Huh? I was trying to provide context to answer a question.
    Please stop attacking people for perceived slights. It's not useful to the conversation.
    I did notice that you failed to answer my question.

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    Canonical is a private for profit company with private interests, whereas most distro providers or indeed the kernel team are not. Not all companies choose to conduct business in the same way either nor are they based on the same countries and bound by the same legal framework.

    It wouldn't be the first time people over-react to things like these. I've done a number of contributions (edit: to canonical server tooling) myself and I didn't find any of it to be a big deal. I still own the copyright to my code and can license it in any way I see fit. If I wanted to.

    Leave a comment:


  • CochainComplex
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post

    Have you actually read the agreement? It's basically a way for Canonical to avoid getting sued for work contributed to them in open source projects, but limits the developers in no way.
    why is a CLA of similar kind not necessary for the Linux Kernel? Why do not all Distroprovider have CLA's?

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
    CLA
    Have you actually read the agreement? It's basically a way for Canonical to avoid getting sued for work contributed to them in open source projects, but limits the developers in no way.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by omer666 View Post

    It is not "rewriting history", it's just an interpretation of it, and to say the least, the most accurate. The problem is not that they go their own way, the problem is how they have been doing it. It got better recently, though.



    In a few years we all need to band together and push for 24.04 Naughty Newt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shiba
    replied
    Originally posted by doublez13 View Post
    WHAT?? They're not going to write their own WIFI stack?
    systemd will do it eventually.

    Leave a comment:


  • V1tol
    replied
    Originally posted by loganj View Post
    starshipeleven i have a router with same name for the network for both 5gh and 2ghz. with IWD i was unable to connect to a specific network (2/5 ghz). so it always connected to 2ghz due to strong signal i think.
    I bought my first 5Ghz router only this year and had exactly the same problem with every device I have. Linux, Windows, macOS, Intel or Atheros - does not matter. I think it heavily depends on router implementation, so I just gave different names to my networks and I didn't had any problems since then.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X