From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

I've seen this at least three times over maybe the
past six months - different boxes, different distros.

Everything is fine, then suddenly yer system cannot
even SEE whatever wifi networks yer router is
broadcasting except maybe a shitty one. They
don't even show up in the 'select network' thing.

WAIT like a MONTH and MAYbe they come back.

Yep, DID reboot the router.

Today, a perfectly functional box, not updated
for a good week or two, suddenly stopped seeing
my 5ghz wifi network. Apparently worked up until
maybe 5:30 pm, then GONE. Couldn't get it back
even with a custom 'hidden networks' def. It just
"isn't there". It's just intractable no matter
which ways you come at it.

COULD see the neighbors network ... not sure if
it's 5ghz or not. Shitty signal regardless and
he DID set a password.

This time I DID have a cheat ... one of those USB
wifi dongles. Plugged that in, disabled the on-
board wifi (easy with MX utils) and the dongle
DID see my 5ghz stuff just fine.

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

Again, if I check back in a few weeks the onboard
device MAY work properly again. DID do full/version
upgrades ... which seemed to include a module for
the onboard wifi ... but haven't checked yet to see
if that solved my issue. Probably not based on
previous experience.

Sorry, nothing is overheating - it's a nice
cool box.

Any words of wisdom ???

Is there a way to make Linux COMPLETELY forget
any pre-used/defined wifi networks - a total
purge so you can start over ?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-05-17 07:12, c186282 wrote:

Any words of wisdom ???

Reboot?
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to wireless.

You'll get reliable connections that obtain their full througput day in
and day out without fail.

With wireless, your neighbor powering up an old microwave /could be/ sufficient to take out your entire wireless network until their coffee/tea/dinner is finished cooking.

Too many interference variables with wireless connections.

You'll find that 100Mbs wired ethernet is generally more than
sufficient for streaming without the herkey-jerkey. And today you have
to go out of your way to find hardware that is 100Mbs only.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to
wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

Therefore use of the word "prefer".

If there are no wires, and if c186282 is incapable of routing wires,
well, then he will just have to live with the fact that wireless is
"best effort, and sometimes very lossy".
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to
wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel
--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-05-17, c186282 wrote:

I've seen this at least three times over maybe the
past six months - different boxes, different distros.

Everything is fine, then suddenly yer system cannot
even SEE whatever wifi networks yer router is
broadcasting except maybe a shitty one. They
don't even show up in the 'select network' thing.

[...]

Who manufactured the faulty WLAN NICs? Any chance they're all Broadcoms?
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to
wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to. I have two choices; 4/5G
or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access than the
US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random countries is a
better use of resources.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-05-18 03:10, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to
wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to. I have two choices; 4/5G
or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access than the
US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random countries is a
better use of resources.

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be cable.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 18/05/2026 02:10, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to
wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to.

Buy a hub, I mean you can wire your home at least...

I have two choices; 4/5G

or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access than the
US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random countries is a
better use of resources.

Starlink is a good choice.
--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-05-18 03:10, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires
to wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to. I have two choices;
4/5G or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access
than the US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random
countries is a better use of resources.

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess? I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 18 May 2026 13:35:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/05/2026 02:10, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires
to wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to.

Buy a hub, I mean you can wire your home at least...

Why would I want to add more wires to the existing rat's nest?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-05-18 18:06, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-05-18 03:10, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 21:04:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/05/2026 17:38, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires >>>>>> to wireless.

You're assuming there are 'wires'.

You buy them by the 70 yard reel

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to. I have two choices;
4/5G or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access
than the US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random
countries is a better use of resources.

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess? I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

Because we assumed that you did not have such a garbage device :-P :-D

When I created a 4G connection to my old beach place, I discarded the
offering of a MiFi device (gratis) by the ISP, and instead bought myself
a router, in which I plugged in the SIM card. It gave me 4 Ethernet
ports, WiFi, and good stability of the connection.

I connected both the desktop computer and the printer to that router by
short cables. Laptops and phones (with no limit of connections) used the
WiFi.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 5/17/26 08:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-05-17 07:12, c186282 wrote:

Any words of wisdom ???

Reboot?

Ineffective. Hadn't done any recent updates either so
it's not a poorly-writ new driver.

I've seen this self-heal before. MIGHT be a
balky wifi chip, maybe not. Meanwhile I've
got my plug-in wifi dongle and it's doing OK.

Hmmm ... MIGHT be the router taking a dislike
to my MAC address but I haven't been able to
prove that yet.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-05-18 03:10, rbowman wrote:

Unfortunately I have nothing to connect them to. I have two choices;
4/5G or Starlink. Overall India probably has better broadband access
than the US. The government feels bombing the shit out of random
countries is a better use of resources.

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

I started using mobile broadband with an equivalent of one of those
things. I soon replaced it with a USB mobile broadband modem and a
router with a USB port and OpenWRT installed, from which I get WiFi
plus four 100Mb/s Ethernet ports which work the same as anywhere. I
also don't have to mess around with a web interface to the modem,
it's all controlled by the router (though that's often not the case
with newer modems that identify as an Ethernet interface instead of
a serial device accepting AT commands). I've been using that ever
since, except now with a 4G modem since good old reliable 3G has
been turned off (it does take some driver package hunting to set up
different USB modems in OpenWRT).

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess? I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

It works. It's just the same as any other internet connection going
into a router. As for whether the wires are worth it, if you don't
find WiFi has its own hassles, then I guess not. At least with a
real WiFi router you'll probably get much better WiFi coverage too
though.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 5/17/26 11:32, Rich wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I sometimes use THAT box for video streaming.
2.4ghz is often too herky-jerky.

With the exception of "portable computers" you should prefer wires to wireless.

I'd normally agree - except I live in a old
house that's concrete and real wood. The walls
are not hollow, the ceiling isn't panels.

I've seen pix of some of those old British castles,
they have pipes running down all the walls because
there was no way to get in plumbing/electrics/whatever.

You'll get reliable connections that obtain their full througput day in
and day out without fail.

With wireless, your neighbor powering up an old microwave /could be/ sufficient to take out your entire wireless network until their coffee/tea/dinner is finished cooking.

Too many interference variables with wireless connections.

You'll find that 100Mbs wired ethernet is generally more than
sufficient for streaming without the herkey-jerkey. And today you have
to go out of your way to find hardware that is 100Mbs only.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

On 2026-05-18 09:06, rbowman wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess? I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

I don't know if it's been fixed in the meantime, but back in the days
when I actually read the WiFi protocol specs, WiFi devices were end
nodes, and the source MAC address was that of the WiFi chip. There were
access points that could do bridging, but that was a proprietary
protocol extension, not guaranteed to work between devices from
different brands.
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 18 May 2026 21:06:26 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

On 2026-05-18 09:06, rbowman wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess? I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

I don't know if it's been fixed in the meantime, but back in the days
when I actually read the WiFi protocol specs, WiFi devices were end
nodes, and the source MAC address was that of the WiFi chip. There were access points that could do bridging, but that was a proprietary
protocol extension, not guaranteed to work between devices from
different brands.

Without digging into it that was my concern with the wifi to Ethernet adapters. If you had a device without wifi that had Ethernet you could
plug it in but the adapter would only have one MAC address that would be assigned 192.168.1.xxx.

A VM on a wifi only box is the same. The VM gets a virtual IP that can be pinged from the host, and the kvm/QEMU does so sort of NAT, but all you
ever see is the host's MAC and assigned IP looking from the outside.

In any case I have no problems with the computers, Fire TV, Kindles,
picos, and so forth using wifi and see no advantage to running wire.

Back in the dialup days I recall the Windows laptop had some sort of
'share my internet connection' and I could use a crossover cable to hook
in another machine.

I could connect from the Linux box with a modem but I would reach a point
in the signon dialog where I didn't know the proper response in the Expect script. When asked the ISP said 'we don't support Linux. Use Windows. It
just works.' which I took to mean 'we're clueless on how our dialup system works.'



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 5/19/26 00:06, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:23:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

That's your internet connection. The LAN in your house can still be
cable.

On 2026-05-18 09:06, rbowman wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi

Why would I want to add a WiFi to Ethernet converter to the mix and add
even more wires to the existing mess?-a I am not sure it would even work
for more than one connection.

I don't know if it's been fixed in the meantime, but back in the days
when I actually read the WiFi protocol specs, WiFi devices were end
nodes, and the source MAC address was that of the WiFi chip. There were access points that could do bridging, but that was a proprietary
protocol extension, not guaranteed to work between devices from
different brands.

I started this thread ... and note that where I live
is one of the good OLD houses - solid concrete and
real wood. It is NOT wiring-friendly at all - it was
either built-in in 1952 or Tuff Titty. As such wifi
is the ONLY general solution that won't look like
total shit.

Note I did have a box or two, and one IP cam, that
refused to even see the main router anymore, had to
go thru an extender. BUT, after some serious resets
and such for other reasons a couple of those
'rejected' units could suddenly see the main router
again. This has me thinking ...

Don't think it's the boxes/chips per-se ... but the
router having a grudge against the box's MAC.

So, gonna fuck with THAT angle ... try changing
the MACs and see what happens. Experiments in
progress.

My cheat - the USB wifi dongle - DOES work just
fine ... but of course it has a different MAC
and overall profile. So, meanwhile, I can Get There -
but I'd like better.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2