Re: one more time -- broadcom wireless on f7

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Tim wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 07:55 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > please, no notes along the lines of "well, you might want to try
> > *this* ..."  i've "tried" a number of alleged solution -- now i'm
> > ready for one that simply works.  why is that such an unreasonable
> > request?
>
> If you want new suggestions, you need to have provided a list of
> what you've already done.  We don't know what you don't know.

  no, that is precisely the *wrong* approach.  (and, at this point,
i'm actually addressing more general documentation shortfalls than
just wireless.)

  there is little value in listing the 6 variations i've tried, just
so someone can say, "here, here's a 7th possibility, maybe *that'll*
work."  the basic problem is that too much of this online
documentation (and i'm referring to *way* more than wireless stuff at
this point), simply gives a set of steps, with no discussion of a
contingency plan if it doesn't work in the end.

case in point:

  http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3014

  note how the original poster confidently describes what should work,
after which numerous respondents point out that the same steps didn't
work for *them*.  and i'm willing to bet that many of those
respondents went back and spent time trying exactly the same thing
*again*, with the same lack of success.  and there was nothing to
suggest that what worked for one person would fail for another, even
with the same chip.

  that's why i'm such a big fan of HOWTOs that don't just list a
series of steps but, after each step, they give a command or two you
can run that will let you verify that things still look good, or that
will immediately let you know it's going to fail and there's no point
going any further.

  heck, i'm willing to write such a HOWTO as soon as i can figure out
what i should be checking at each step as a test.  a lot of this was
discussed in an earlier thread but, in the end, even though everything
*appeared* fine, once the configuration was done, i still couldn't get
connected.  so maybe there's really no way to do this after all.

rday

p.s.  i might write up what i think i've established so far and post
it to my wiki, so others can peruse it and tell me where i screwed up.
maybe that will help narrow things down.

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux