ath9k with linux? having wireless troubles...

LukaszR1

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,833
Ok i need to call upon some of my Linux users here on CF

Ok Here are the details of my laptop...

I have the HP G60-324CA Notebook PC.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/p...&lang=en&cc=us
I have the ath9k series wireless card.


When i install Ubuntu on my laptop, everything works out of the box, including Wireless.

The problem i am having is connecting to my wireless SSID and even if i get connected, my wireless cuts in and out as soon as i start any heavy network traffic.

Does anyone know how to fix this problem? its driving me insane, and i've tried almost everything my little brain can think of doing. Help would be greatly appreciated!!

I don't have to use Ubuntu, so if there is a distro someone knows that works without flaws please share.

Thanks guys :)
 

foothead

Omnicide now.
Messages
10,026
Location
My own personal hell
Debian ftw.

Debian Lenny seems to work great with every wireless card I can throw at it, but ubuntu tends to do the same as yours with my belkin card.
 

LukaszR1

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,833
Debian ftw.

Debian Lenny seems to work great with every wireless card I can throw at it, but ubuntu tends to do the same as yours with my belkin card.
I am planning on giving debian a try. Any advice? as I have never used debian before...is it hard to setup?

Hi,

Your link is bad.

I will do a little looking about your wireless card. I am guessing that you have an internal card. Do you know the model of the card in question? When you get a chance I would like you to type or copy this into terminal:
Code:
lspci -v | less
Then post he output up here.

Cheers!
Here is a link with the detailed specs.
http://bizsupport1.austin.hp.com/bi...=3884570&prodTypeId=321957&objectID=c01689792

and thanks, hopefully you find something that'll help solve my problem :)
 

foothead

Omnicide now.
Messages
10,026
Location
My own personal hell
Ummmm......

Ubuntu basically stole the whole system, so if you can set up ubuntu, you can set up debian. It just doesn't have the shiny installer or the liveCD feature. Think ubuntu alternate installer.

ADVICE--- Get the DVD downloads and use a torrent for them. It's like 40+ CD's now. Really all you need is the first disc, but where's the fun in that?
 

Joel~

Daemon Poster
Messages
511
Location
United Kingdom
Ummmm......

Ubuntu basically stole the whole system
Not true. It's not stealing if it's open-source in the first place...

ADVICE--- Get the DVD downloads and use a torrent for them. It's like 40+ CD's now. Really all you need is the first disc, but where's the fun in that?
Or, just get the first CD and only install what you need using APT. Nobody needs all of the packages available.

To the OP, what sort of signal strength do you get? And if you ping your router over a period of time, do you drop any packets?
 

foothead

Omnicide now.
Messages
10,026
Location
My own personal hell
Not true. It's not stealing if it's open-source in the first place..
I know its not considered stealing, but the original ubuntu was basically debian with a skin, thats basically it.

I have yet to figure out why it has such a massive following, especially since debian is still there, and most major linux systems are still debian based.

Not true. It's not stealing if it's open-source in the first place...



Or, just get the first CD and only install what you need using APT. Nobody needs all of the packages available.
But like I said, where is the fun in that?

Of course, I have 1.5 TB to waste so space isn't an issue for me.

Just use the DVD not the CD if you are installing only the first disc. It has some very helpful utilities that the CD doesn't have.
 

Joel~

Daemon Poster
Messages
511
Location
United Kingdom
I know its not considered stealing, but the original ubuntu was basically debian with a skin, thats basically it.

I have yet to figure out why it has such a massive following, especially since debian is still there, and most major linux systems are still debian based.
It has a massive following because it made it so much simpler for people new to Linux to install. Users coming from a Windows environment are generally intimidated by text-based installers, so graphical installers win here. Similarly, it's more up-to-date, which seems to suit a lot of those kind of users.

Furthermore, most major Linux systems are not Debian-based. In fact, of the ones considered to be major, I'd say only two are Debian-based, and that's if you count Debian as being Debian-based, rather than simply just being Debian. Here are what I view as the 'major' distributions:

Debian
RHEL
openSUSE
Ubuntu
Fedora
Slackware
Arch Linux

Only one of those is Debian-based, the other one is Debian. The others have roots elsewhere/are themselves.


However, we're getting way too off-topic, so I'm going to shut up now. :)
 

foothead

Omnicide now.
Messages
10,026
Location
My own personal hell
Huh. Interesting.
I thought for some reason that Red Hat and fedora were Debian based.

I guess you're right there. It just seems like everything I use is Debian based.


I don't exactly see this being off-topic as the OP is looking for a new Distro.
 
Top