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

  • #31
    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?

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.

            Comment


            • #36
              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

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by grigi View Post

                I think (s)he's alluding to the previous projects where Ubuntu went their own way when a viable solution already existed.
                Some examples are:
                * Bzr
                * launchpad (was a leading OSS code hosting platform at a time, but the requirement of bzr killed it for many, and hosting your own was near impossible)
                * Unity (pre-8 was pretty awesome, and actually blazed some trails)
                * Upstart
                * Mir
                * Snap
                In practical terms, bzr was released before git, wonder if you knew that one.

                Launchpad worked till better alternatives came up and guess what it was GitHub, proprietary.

                Upstart existed and worked great for quite a few years SUSE and Ubuntu, two of the top distros used that, till something better came up.

                Snap, while you may not like it, didn't have an "alternate" at the time. The distro packaging formats only work for building a distro, nothing else. Ask an ISV and you'll know.

                I like to think Canonical as a company that may not have success with it's side projects but always dared to do things that no one in the free software community had the resources or motivation for.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by grigi View Post

                  I think (s)he's alluding to the previous projects where Ubuntu went their own way when a viable solution already existed.
                  Some examples are:
                  * Bzr
                  * launchpad (was a leading OSS code hosting platform at a time, but the requirement of bzr killed it for many, and hosting your own was near impossible)
                  * Unity (pre-8 was pretty awesome, and actually blazed some trails)
                  * Upstart
                  * Mir
                  * Snap
                  * Upstart replaced sysvinit and solved lots of actual problems, which is why it became the dominant init system, even if RedHat later decided to make their own. (Which for some reason is ok for RedHat).
                  * Bzr is older than Git, so this is an argument against Git rather than Bzr. Because both Git and Bzr solves problems compared to earlier systems, so if the creation of Bzr was wrong, then it was more wrong to make Git.
                  * I don't know what you're comparing Snap to. Can you name another packaging system that fulfills the same requirements that existed at the time Snap was designed?
                  * The Mir display server still doesn't have any competitors. We no longer have any DS suitable for the specific use-case that Mir was designed for. I wonder how it made your list of preexisting things that Canonical replaced for the sake of replacing them?

                  It is difficult to counter your claim that it was nearly impossible to run Lauchpad. My guess is you never tried and pretty much just made that one up in order to have something bad to say about Launchpad. I mean, after all, it's much easier to run Lauchpad than it is to run GitHub, which is very popular.

                  Honestly, it's not that much, but they often do them for what appears to be the wrong reasons.
                  I also think their insistence in having a CLA that any contributor needs to sign killed many of their projects for them.
                  That's entirely off-topic.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    It's just a sarcastic way to state that Canonical has a long history of reinventing the wheel where they really should not have done that.
                    But they don't actually have that history. I countered some of the claims in another comment. If you have something to add, then I would be interested in hearing it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

                      On the other hand Canonical - as said by others tend to reinvent the wheel - instead of participating or make existing solutions better.
                      You put that in, but then don't provide one single example, instead making it into a rant about CLA, which entirely off-topic and seems to be a mindless mantra considering it's done by other projects such as GNU and Apache with no complaints at all.

                      * Bzr is older than Git, so Git was the NIH-project, not Bzr.
                      * Upstart is older than Systemd init, so Systemd init is the NIH-project.
                      * Compiz is older then Mutter, so Mutter is the NIH-project, not Compiz.
                      * Mir had feature requirements that were incompatible with Weston. Nothing similar exists to date, meaning not a NIH-project.
                      * Snap is still the only system of its kind, so it's not a NIH-project.

                      So which wheels is it people feel that they've recreated?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X