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

[starshipeleven]

does iwd now allow to select a specific BSSID?
i thought it has a lot missing features

Now I can select BSSID field in NetworkManager with iwd backend and it seems to work (it was remembering the bssid of a device that does not exist anymore and it didn't want to connect to the network until I changed that field).
I don't know if this is due to iwd or NetworkManager though

[Atirage21]

On laptop HP 8570w after sleeping is not going wifi with iwd !, it is neded restart of pc or command: systemctl restart iwd.service

[jo-erlend]

Flatpak formerly known as xdg-app pre-dates Snap.

Snap initial release was December 2014. Xdg-app initial release was in September 2015. But Snap was a redesign of Canonical's previous system, Click, which was available in 2010, I believe. The purpose of the redesign was to turn Snap into a more general purpose package management solution, making it incomparable to FlatPak, since FlatPak doesn't support the core features of the Snap system. If you do want to compare the FlatPak features, then you should compare to Click, which as I said is many years older than xdg-app.

[finalzone]

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.

Flatpak formerly known as xdg-app pre-dates Snap.

[starshipeleven]

But they don't actually have that history.

Yes they have, it's the same old story and I don't have the time to repeat the same things all over again for people like you that won't listen.

[jo-erlend]

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.

Yes and it was used in RHEL and ChromeOS as well.

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jo-erlend]

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?

[jo-erlend]

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.

[jo-erlend]

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.

[om26er]

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.