On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:50:03 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <pan.2007.12.31.19.16.04.112100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > If you post this in Digg, the mob will burn an effigy of yours. ;-)
>>
>> Why? I haven't been over to Digg for a while, what do they have against
>> Ubuntu?
>
> Nothing in general. Lots of Ubuntu fans there. But there is a small
> group that will lecture you about confusing Ubuntu with Linux if you
> don't point out in your post that Wifi can be made to work on other
> distros, too. Oddly, Roy is part of that small group, which makes his
> post here kind of puzzling.
Well, my point was certainly not that other distros are somehow crapp or
worthless because of this particular issue. I could probably have got the
Broadcom card working eventually with a number of distros (it was mainly a
firmware thing, after all, and I have the firmware) but Ubuntu made it
much easier, even easier than Mepis, whic is the only other distros of
late that could ever get the card to show signs of life 'out of the box'
as it were.
I think Roy's smiley-wink suggests he was pulling my tail a bit, which is
okay, since I am sometimes hard on him.
Googling around a while back, I found some info on getting Broadcom to
work, but the procedure is not identical to all distros, since some deal
with it differently from others, and the instructions weren't always
clear. Ubuntu's Restricted Drivers manager had an Enable Broadcom'
option. Tick the box, ignoring the error message that comes up about
fwcutter, drop in the firmware and set up, and voila! working wireless. No
blacklisting of native drivers or trouble with ndiswrapper necessary.
So, in my book, that means Ubuntu deserves some praise, since the Broadcom
wifi card has long been a pain in the arse to Linux users.
If that's supposed to make me some kind of Ubuntu fanboy, then fine,
I'll happily accept the label. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
--
Kier
|
|
