Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89899 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 41 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-14 21:35 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-15 07:13 -0700
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 02:14 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 19:26 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:58 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:31 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:36 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 17:18 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 22:00 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:33 +0100
[OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 19:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 19:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-20 20:19 +0000
[OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 11:35 +0100
Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-22 19:07 +0000
Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 23:31 +0100
Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 00:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 21:57 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:25 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-22 04:10 +0000
[OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 11:40 +0100
Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:32 +0100
Re: [OT] 10\+BASE-T on mobile phones Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-22 16:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-22 19:03 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 23:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 00:50 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:45 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:17 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 01:57 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 06:20 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:51 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:58 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:20 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:19 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:36 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000 |
| Subject | The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture |
| Message-ID | <ne9mu6Fpk4lU3@mid.individual.net> |
<https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 21:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2GydnQzeBfrDX-L3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89899 |
On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: > <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> Heh heh ... YEP ! Esp with 5ghz. Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path. The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary light, and less like 'radio'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <115ps76$3eh3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89901 |
On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote: > On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: >> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- >> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> > > Heh heh ... YEP ! > > Esp with 5ghz. > > Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. > Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty > damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path > was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got > the obstruction out of the path. Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase and may cancel each other out. > The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary > light, and less like 'radio'. Yes, for sure! -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-16 02:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ECGdnedEyfbbyBz3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #89910 |
On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: >>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- >>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> >> >> Heh heh ... YEP ! >> >> Esp with 5ghz. >> >> Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. >> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty >> damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path >> was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got >> the obstruction out of the path. > > Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths > (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase and > may cancel each other out. Yep. And the higher the freq, the worse ! >> The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary >> light, and less like 'radio'. > > Yes, for sure! I have seven IP cams looking out around. Set them ALL to 2.4ghz because that's less vulnerable to "shadow" effects. Only run 1-hz reads, so speed is much less important than solid connections.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115vn8q$189l9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89924 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: >>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- >>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> >>> >>> Heh heh ... YEP ! >>> >>> Esp with 5ghz. >>> >>> Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. >>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD >>> connection. Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but >>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path. >> >> Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths >> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase >> and may cancel each other out. > > Yep. > > And the higher the freq, the worse ! Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive interference is still destructive interference. What is worse for higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 20:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <115vp49$19eg9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89984 |
On 17/08/2026 20:26, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: >>>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- >>>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> >>>> >>>> Heh heh ... YEP ! >>>> >>>> Esp with 5ghz. >>>> >>>> Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. >>>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD >>>> connection. Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but >>>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path. >>> >>> Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths >>> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase >>> and may cancel each other out. >> >> Yep. >> >> And the higher the freq, the worse ! > > Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive > interference is still destructive interference. What is worse for > higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the > same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power). > Well not really, Go far enough and you run into light and that seems to work OK at a billion lightyears plus. It all depends on what you are travelling through. 50 miles is an effective range of a 35GHz microwave link before the earth's curvature renders that a bit impractical 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not with trees in the way. There is an argument that scattering and destructive interference is precisely how propagation losses happen anyway... -- "In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is true: it is true because it is powerful." Lucas Bergkamp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115vs1t$1af77$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89988 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 17/08/2026 20:26, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- >>>>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/> >>>>> >>>>> Heh heh ... YEP ! >>>>> >>>>> Esp with 5ghz. >>>>> >>>>> Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection. >>>>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD >>>>> connection. Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but >>>>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path. >>>> >>>> Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths >>>> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase >>>> and may cancel each other out. >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>> And the higher the freq, the worse ! >> >> Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive >> interference is still destructive interference. What is worse for >> higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the >> same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power). >> > Well not really, Go far enough and you run into light and that seems to > work OK at a billion lightyears plus. While true, I was leaving things like that out, our "speed of light" nym seems to get confused too easily otherwise. > It all depends on what you are travelling through. 50 miles is an > effective range of a 35GHz microwave link before the earth's curvature > renders that a bit impractical Speed of light nym was talking about WiFi links, so given current, affordable, home tech, that's 2.4G and 5G WiFi links. And presuming the 2.4G and 5G signals begin at the same access point (a normal assumption for a typical install) then at the same distance away (assuming a reasonable WiFi type distance), in general, the 5G signal will be more attenuated than the 2.4G signal. > 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not > with trees in the way. Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good 2.4G signal absorbing medium. > There is an argument that scattering and destructive interference is > precisely how propagation losses happen anyway... In general it is, which is why "light, in space" can propagate such distances. There is little matter in the way to produce that scattering. And what matter there is is very dispersed, so it reduces the scattering. For "speed of light nym's WiFi signals" and presuming a fixed AP and a fixed laptop/phone there is plenty of matter in between for scattering (or outright absorption).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gYNgS.25819$YHa3.11599@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #89993 |
On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not >> with trees in the way. > > Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good > 2.4G signal absorbing medium. Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 22:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <072dnayJNZh1Xh73nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90007 |
On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not >>> with trees in the way. >> >> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good >> 2.4G signal absorbing medium. > > Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES. Mostly we use wi-fi INDOORS, so ... I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good data rate. Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. Fortunately repeaters are NOT very expensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1161n58$1rflc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90013 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not >>>> with trees in the way. >>> >>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good >>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium. >> >> Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. > > Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES. 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures. Brick and concrete are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals. Brick and concrete also absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that 5Ghz is absorbed. > I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will > get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good > data rate. There is no "perfect frequency". Ignoring FCC rules that mean you can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency. But lower frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data speeds. Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is acceptable to you. > Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then > pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 17:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11620kt$1v4qd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90061 |
On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not >>>>> with trees in the way. >>>> >>>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good >>>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium. >>> >>> Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. >> >> Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES. > > 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures. Brick and concrete > are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals. Brick and concrete also > absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that > 5Ghz is absorbed. > >> I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will >> get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good >> data rate. > > There is no "perfect frequency". Ignoring FCC rules that mean you > can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less > attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency. But lower > frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data > speeds. > Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 50 baud running on 27MHz > Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is > acceptable to you. > >> Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then >> pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. > > Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most > non-techie folks won't end up going that route. > The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1162klu$26ait$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90069 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then >>> pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. >> >> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most >> non-techie folks won't end up going that route. >> > The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 Indeed, yes. That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 14:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1164bap$2le0s$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90078 |
On 18/08/2026 23:00, Rich wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then >>>> pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. >>> >>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most >>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route. >>> >> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 > > Indeed, yes. That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those > devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire. > Even if they cant, my decision to put CAT 5 everywhere - originally for phone but now for Ethernet, means that I can drop a WAP in anywhere in the house that needs it -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture |
| Message-ID | <1167h3t$3mq46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90078 |
On 2026-08-18, Rich wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then >>>> pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure. >>> >>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most >>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route. >>> >> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 > > Indeed, yes. That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those > devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire. I appreciate all the petting and the cuteness and so on, but I'm not sure how do they provide the data transfer. Do I need to configure a TUN-a interface? -- (Apologies,) Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 19:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture |
| Message-ID | <nep38hFpub2U31@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90228 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 19:30:21 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-08-18, Rich wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: >>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>>> Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then >>>>> pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the >>>>> structure. >>>> >>>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most >>>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route. >>>> >>> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 >> >> Indeed, yes. That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those >> devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire. > > I appreciate all the petting and the cuteness and so on, but I'm not > sure how do they provide the data transfer. > > Do I need to configure a TUN-a interface? https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna- lickable-cat-treats I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly recognizes the tube.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 20:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture |
| Message-ID | <GjJhS.10493$Z7Ef.6893@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #90230 |
On 2026-08-20, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna- > lickable-cat-treats > > I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly > recognizes the tube. We have some pretty addictive kitty treats ourselves. Shake the container and both cats - wherever they might be in the house - are there within 5 seconds. (Well, maybe 10 if they're asleep.) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 11:35 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) |
| Message-ID | <116bu1d$usia$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90232 |
On 2026-08-20, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-20, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> https://www.petco.com/product/purina-friskies-lil-lickables-with-tuna- >> lickable-cat-treats >> >> I've seen these referred to a 'kitten cocaine'. The cat certainly >> recognizes the tube. From experience I can say this kind of food delivery method becomes slightly impractical if you have less hands than mouths to concurrently feed. > We have some pretty addictive kitty treats ourselves. > Shake the container and both cats - wherever they might > be in the house - are there within 5 seconds. (Well, > maybe 10 if they're asleep.) ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as far as it's canned! :-) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 19:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords (was: Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture) |
| Message-ID | <neuaccF5rktU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90331 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as > far as it's canned! Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I can attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats to materialize out of thin air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 23:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords |
| Message-ID | <116d7vq$1gc75$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90348 |
On 22/08/2026 20:07, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, as
>> far as it's canned!
>
> Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I can
> attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats to
> materialize out of thin air.
Cats mainly live in a parallel universe
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 00:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] On feeding our overlords |
| Message-ID | <neuuimF5rktU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90358 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 23:31:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 22/08/2026 20:07, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 11:35:25 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: >> >>> ... opening a can works well, no matter whether it's cat food or not, >>> as far as it's canned! >> >> Without getting into a discussion of feeding semi-feral outdoor cats I >> can attest that the sound of the pop top on a Friskies can causes cats >> to materialize out of thin air. > > Cats mainly live in a parallel universe That may be the explanation of why it isn't Schrödinger's hedgehog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web