Dear all,
I have read some good news(I hope), that Atheros will be releasing some new
drivers for Atheros based wireless. I hope that it will be better than the
ath5k which was ported from OpenBSD and then fixed! How soon can we see this
new driver in Fedora?
If I am not mistaken it is named
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 04:25:55PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> I have read some good news(I hope), that Atheros will be releasing
> some new drivers for Atheros based wireless. I hope that it will be
> better than the ath5k which was ported from OpenBSD and then fixed!
> How soon can we see
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT: Atheros releases free Linux driver for Its 802.11n Devices
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "For users of Fedora"
> Date: Monday, July
John W. Linville redhat.com> writes:
> automatic release after just +3 in Bodhi?!?!?
Bodhi's development version has changed to make this more flexible, it just
hasn't hit production yet.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redha
Antonio Olivares yahoo.com> writes:
> Why do I ask, because ath5k (does not work)/(did not work) for me, I had to
> blacklist it :(
Isn't ath9k for different (newer) devices than ath5k?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.c
> > Why do I ask, because ath5k (does not work)/(did not
> work) for me, I had to
> > blacklist it :(
>
> Isn't ath9k for different (newer) devices than ath5k?
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
> --
I believe it is, but here you can find out more information
http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Driver
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:32:12 -0400,
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Previously I would have said you could expect ath9k in Fedora nearly
> as soon as it is upstream, so nearly immediately. Unfortunately,
> a combination of unfortunate bugs and questionable changes to
> how
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:57:53AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Note that some discussions on LWN concerning whether kernel bugs with security
> implications were being clearly labelled as such, suggests that the -97
> kernel included security fixes. As such pushing those updates out a bit fast
John W. Linville redhat.com> writes:
> And -86? And -55? Seems like there was another as well..
2 others... -55 was the WPA problem (the bad wireless-fixups patch), -86 was
iwl4965 flakiness (which appears to be fixed in -97).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@red
