On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:40:58 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02.02.2012 23:03, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, pat wrote: [
> >> Humo
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02.02.2012 23:03, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, pat wrote: [
>> Humongous snip ]
>>
>>> Still the same :-|
>>
>> Seems really weird. I can only t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02.02.2012 23:03, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, pat wrote: [
> Humongous snip ]
>
>> Still the same :-|
>
> Seems really weird. I can only think the following options:
>
> 1. Something is messing up with NetworkMa
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, pat wrote:
[ Humongous snip ]
> Still the same :-|
Seems really weird. I can only think the following options:
1. Something is messing up with NetworkManager.
1.a. Can be possible that the /etc/init.d/net.* scripts are running
alongside NetworkManager? I don't
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:28:34 +0100, pat wrote
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:56:59 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02.02.2012 10:20, pat wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:30:42 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote On
> > > 01.02.2012 2
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:56:59 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02.02.2012 10:20, pat wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:30:42 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote On
> > 01.02.2012 21:33, pat wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:16:18 +0100,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02.02.2012 10:20, pat wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:30:42 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote On
> 01.02.2012 21:33, pat wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:16:18 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
wrote On 01.02.2012 00:34, pat wrote:
>>> On S
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:30:42 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01.02.2012 21:33, pat wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:16:18 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote On
> > 01.02.2012 00:34, pat wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:34:36 +0100,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2012 21:33, pat wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:16:18 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote On
> 01.02.2012 00:34, pat wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:34:36 +0100, pat wrote
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:49:33 +1100, Adam Carter wrote
>> T
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:16:18 +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01.02.2012 00:34, pat wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:34:36 +0100, pat wrote
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:49:33 +1100, Adam Carter wrote
> >>> There were a few kernels that br
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2012 00:34, pat wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:34:36 +0100, pat wrote
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:49:33 +1100, Adam Carter wrote
>>> There were a few kernels that broke iwlagn. Iirc it was 3.1.5
>>> and 3.1.6. So
>> i'd suggest you stick to tro
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:49:33 +1100, Adam Carter wrote
> There were a few kernels that broke iwlagn. Iirc it was 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. So
i'd suggest you stick to troubleshooting on a kernel you know has previously
worked, or a very recent one.
Well, that's the problem, it doesn't work on last working o
There were a few kernels that broke iwlagn. Iirc it was 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. So
i'd suggest you stick to troubleshooting on a kernel you know has
previously worked, or a very recent one.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:42:52 -0500, Michael Mol wrote
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM, pat wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:08:17 +, Mick wrote
> >> On Saturday 28 Jan 2012 17:00:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:52 AM, pat wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 1
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM, pat wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:08:17 +, Mick wrote
>> On Saturday 28 Jan 2012 17:00:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:52 AM, pat wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:37 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote
>> > >
>> > >> Am 28.01.201
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:08:17 +, Mick wrote
> On Saturday 28 Jan 2012 17:00:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:52 AM, pat wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:37 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote
> > >
> > >> Am 28.01.2012 12:38, schrieb pat:
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >>
On Saturday 28 Jan 2012 17:00:35 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:52 AM, pat wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:37 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote
> >
> >> Am 28.01.2012 12:38, schrieb pat:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I've used wireless network about half of a year ago. Now I n
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:52 AM, pat wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:37 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote
>> Am 28.01.2012 12:38, schrieb pat:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've used wireless network about half of a year ago. Now I need it and it
>> > doesn't start :-( My gentoo is up to date.
>> >
>> > I'm us
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:46:37 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote
> Am 28.01.2012 12:38, schrieb pat:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've used wireless network about half of a year ago. Now I need it and it
> > doesn't start :-( My gentoo is up to date.
> >
> > I'm using network manager (and it's nm-applet).
> >
> > W
Am 28.01.2012 12:38, schrieb pat:
> Hi,
>
> I've used wireless network about half of a year ago. Now I need it and it
> doesn't start :-( My gentoo is up to date.
>
> I'm using network manager (and it's nm-applet).
>
> Wireless info:
> description: Wireless interface
> product: WiFi Link 6000 Se
20 matches
Mail list logo