Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:46:24 -0500 (EST)
- From: bw <bwtnguy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Brian writes ("Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation"):
> > #694068, #696755, #727740 and #777439.
> I have read the bug logs and Trent Buck's message here
> seems to suggest a way forward.
> Perhaps someone would care to write and test a patch to d-i's network
> configuration arrangements, to implement Trent's suggestion ? I think
> that the people who don't have network-manager would probably prefer
> this to use ifupdown, and making a whole new udeb will be work, so
> Trent's second suggestion seems sensible.
Second suggestion being networkd preferred over ifupdown? yeah, I had
thought this was going to come up eventually. State it in plain english,
if ifupdown is to be replaced, then let's get on with it.
> > > > The plain and simple fact is that a user who installs over a wireless
> > > > link and does not have network-manager does not have any connectivity
> > > > to the internet after first boot. Long Wind solved the issue by taking
> > > > the advice given and Charlie S used his initiative and knowledge to
> > > > devise an /e/n/i file which replaced the one the installer had wiped
> > > > out.
> > > >
> > > > This has been going on since Debian 7.0.0 and is not the first time the
> > > > issue has arisen here. Debian must be the only OS which deliberately
> > > > removes connectivity present during installation.
> I have to say that the tone of this message is rather unfortunate.
> You make it sound like someone is deliberately breaking stuff. That
> doesn't seem to be the case.
> Comparing to other distros can be very helpful but generalised
> statements that they don't have this bug is less useful than looking
> into how they solve the problem.
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> These opinions are my own.
> If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
> a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
I think the whole thread is unfortunate, because it was started by a
person (Long Wind) who earlier posted a request for help about how to hack
into their neighbor's wireless network to steal internet service.
I'm really shocked that anybody would try and make wireless easier to use
for thieves. They should be shunned, not used as example clueless users
to implement fixes or new features.
Sorry to get personal, and apologies for being blunt if I offended.