Re: name for wireless interface
On Sat 12 Aug 2017 at 18:38:05 (-0400), Fungi4All wrote:
> > From: peter@easthope.ca
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > peter@easthope.ca
> >
> > A TL-WN722N adapter connected to a stretch system gives these results.
> >
> > peter@imager:~$ lsusb | grep Ath
> > Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0cf3:9271 Atheros Communications, Inc. AR9271 802.11n
> >
> > root@imager:/home/peter# iwlist scan
> > wlxa0f3c10a28f7 Interface doesn"t support scanning : Network is down
> >
> > lo Interface doesn"t support scanning.
> >
> > eth0 Interface doesn"t support scanning.
> >
> > What is the origin of the long name, wlxa0f3c10a28f7?
> > Can a shorter name be assigned?
>
> I can not help much and I have given up worrying about this madness.
> I have two debian installations, one has been on for years. The one is
> testing the other unstable and previously have never had problems with
> either one. Lately neither one has been able to maintain a wifi connection
> for long and takes 2-3' to boot up. I took J.Johnson's recommendation
> to play around with ifconfig -a and ifconfig wlan0 up from console.
> The first time I run it the interface was listed as wlan0
> The second run it became wlan0mon
> The third it became wlan0monmon
>
> I barely get enough time to run an update/upgrade on both installation
> and then it is down hill from there.
>
> NOW
>
> I have 4 more installations on the same machine, as I keep debian for
> sentimental reasons only. None of the four different installations have
> had ANY connection problems, same machine, same wifi device, same
> connection. The two are devuan-based the other two are Arch based.
> NONE have systemd on them, only Debian does.
>
> You tell me what is wrong. Setup is about the same, wicd is on all of them.
As usual, there's not much information to go on. I haven't seen
"J.Johnson's recommendation to play around with ifconfig -a and
ifconfig wlan0 up from console" but that sounds a great way to
break a system, particularly if there are some scripts that are
getting executed over and over.
A while back I wrote to you in another thread, "I'm trying to explain
what may have happened under the circumstances that you have presented
us with. You are the one trying to apportion blame, and you've decided
on fsck and grub." Getting a straight description of any problem from
you seems to be very difficult, so I'm not really surprised that no
one has yet taken the bait.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: