On 1 December 2011 13:02, Pedro Francisco pedrogfrancisco@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:09 +0000, Pedro Francisco wrote:
Right thread though,
May be (as few of us can remember the origins of this thread), but you've replied at the wrong point. By this time the conversation has changed, and your reply has nothing to do with the message that you've replied to. And that's what replies should be (one message in reply to another *particular* message). You need to go further back, and make your reply to the right place. It's the only way that it'll make any sense to anybody reading it.
I'm not following your point. I replied to the first message, the one which started the thread.
I saw a bad review, quickly scanned the thread to see if anyone else had seen a pattern on what was working badly (networking related) and decided to add my information, namely the peripheral possibly responsible and a possible solution which I'm occasionaly working on.
Indeed, it's been so long since the thread started and the original post was only worth such a cursory glance that most people have probably forgotten this was a detail in the review (I know I had).
Just thought I'd chime in that my laptop is still happily using iwl3945 in F16 without noticeable connection problems. (Yes, it's faster if I connect it via ethernet, but I've always expected that.) Thanks if you're actually working on improving support for this chipset.