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

Re: Can't get started

On Mon 01 Jun 2020 at 09:34:46 (+0300), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 30 mai 20, 16:09:46, David Wright wrote:
> > 
> > My only worry was whether systemd-networkd gives way gracefully
> > to a configured ifupdown, or fights it like systemd-timesyncd vs ntp.
> systemd-networkd is not enabled nor configured by default in buster.

That was my guess; good to have it confirmed.

> > > > I've yet to see any virtue in using a static configuration¹ at home
> > > > and dhcp everywhere else.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > ¹ Static, that is, from the point of view of the PC. I use static
> > > > IP numbers, but they're issued by the router, which makes spotting
> > > > any interlopers easier (assuming you reserve a range for
> > > > "foreign" assignment).
> > > 
> > > ISP provided router with no support for DHCP reservations, combined with 
> > > running something like barrier on the laptop.
> > 
> > I can't understand what you're trying to describe here. My footnote
> > was to explain that I appreciate a desire to have fixed IP addresses
> > for devices when they're at home, but they're not going to hold as
> > soon as you leave. I reserve everything up to .199 on my main router
> > for devices we own, so that casual devices will appear as .2xx.
> > Again, it's just a convenience.
> Apparently we are talking about completely different things / past each 
> other so, in my opinion, there is no value in discussing this further.

First, let me thank you for the warning about the bug that can affect
passwordless wifi. I didn't know that, and presumably the OP didn't either.

I've tried to help the OP get their system working with wifi. I think
the only other suggestions have been to start over. Perhaps that says
something. But I tried to make my suggestions applicable whichever .iso
had been used originally, and whatever software had been installed
during the d-i step. We've never been informed of either.

Your valued contributions, while correct, and interesting in
themselves, haven't made the same assumptions as mine, and I've
pointed that out along the way. I'm sorry to disappoint you in not
being able to make sense of your last contribution on some sort of
ISP provided router and "barrier". As far as the OP's problem is
concerned, I've already yielded to others.


Reply to: