ther I post those in a new bugzilla?
Nah, just haven't gotten around to it quite yet. But I'm going to
commit them.
Dan
> Jon
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > > greets Pascal
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Messag
; > From: Dan Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 9:48 PM
> > To: yelo_3
> > Cc: network manager
> > Subject:Re: applet and wireless scan
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 19:40 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > > > That
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 9:48 PM
> To: yelo_3
> Cc: network manager
> Subject:Re: applet and wireless scan
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 19:40 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > > Tha
so.
greets Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Dan Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 9:48 PM
To: yelo_3
Cc: network manager
Subject:Re: applet and wireless scan
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 19:40 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > That's almost certainly a d
understood. how much time should pass between the two clicks to be considered
not a dos?
I truely cannot realize if the scan is done only the first time of a series of
clicks or the scan-when-click feature has been disabled because of this reason
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 19:40 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > That's almost certainly a driver issue. If the driver is saying that
> > quality of the AP is 30%, but you cannot connect, then the driver is
> > wrong. The driver should be factoring all necessary information into
> > the "quality" measurement
> That's almost certainly a driver issue. If the driver is saying that
> quality of the AP is 30%, but you cannot connect, then the driver is
> wrong. The driver should be factoring all necessary information into
> the "quality" measurement.
I will post a bug to ipw2200 tracer, thank you for the
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 15:17 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > "quality" is a subjective value that usually includes things like TX
> > retries, decryption errors, and other connection information in addition
> > to signal strength. You can have a fairly high signal-to-noise ratio
> > but still have an over
> "quality" is a subjective value that usually includes things like TX
> retries, decryption errors, and other connection information in addition
> to signal strength. You can have a fairly high signal-to-noise ratio
> but still have an overloaded radio channel with lots of collisions,
> which mea
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 09:26 +, yelo_3 wrote:
> > We can possibly tweak this, since drivers are better these days than
> > they used to be. The 6 minute interval was chosen a fairly long time
> > ago.
>
> Great!
>
> > Scanned signal strength reported from drivers is still not reliable, but
>
> We can possibly tweak this, since drivers are better these days than
> they used to be. The 6 minute interval was chosen a fairly long time
> ago.
Great!
> Scanned signal strength reported from drivers is still not reliable, but
> is getting a lot better. NM cannot rely on signal strength for
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 22:01 +0100, yelo_3 wrote:
> Thank you Dan for your information!!
> I will do some tries and let you know if there are
> problems with the refresh of the list.
>
> I was complaining about the presence of ghost APs
> because a user thinks that he can connect to it even
> if he
Thank you Dan for your information!!
I will do some tries and let you know if there are
problems with the refresh of the list.
I was complaining about the presence of ghost APs
because a user thinks that he can connect to it even
if he is not in range (6 minutes is still a lot. why
so much?)... an
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 20:25 +0100, yelo_3 wrote:
> you told me that I should wait 10 seconds before
> having an updated list. for me it is a great thing! is
> the list updated even if it is open or should I close
> and reopen it? is this feature in 0.7 or already in
> 0.6.x?
NM scans every 20 seco
you told me that I should wait 10 seconds before
having an updated list. for me it is a great thing! is
the list updated even if it is open or should I close
and reopen it? is this feature in 0.7 or already in
0.6.x?
why iwlist eth1 scan is so quick? is it inaccurate?
and definitely I cannot unde
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:15 +0100, yelo_3 wrote:
> Are you sure?? iwlist eth1 scan gives always more
> updated results than the applet.
>
> I started NetworkManager --no-daemon to see the
> logfile but it does not say anything when I click on
> the icon... but maybe it is normal.. I didn't find an
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 09:25 -0500, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Darren Albers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/6/07, yelo_3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know that nm-applet shows the result of scans every
> > > 2 minutes. I think that this was discussed lots of
> > > times. I just want
On 3/6/07, Darren Albers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/6/07, yelo_3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know that nm-applet shows the result of scans every
> > 2 minutes. I think that this was discussed lots of
> > times. I just wanted to ask a question.
> > why it is not acceptable to do scans al
Are you sure?? iwlist eth1 scan gives always more
updated results than the applet.
I started NetworkManager --no-daemon to see the
logfile but it does not say anything when I click on
the icon... but maybe it is normal.. I didn't find any
option to have mode debugging info
--- Darren Albers <[EM
On 3/6/07, yelo_3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that nm-applet shows the result of scans every
> 2 minutes. I think that this was discussed lots of
> times. I just wanted to ask a question.
> why it is not acceptable to do scans also every time I
> left-click on the applet, to show updated re
I know that nm-applet shows the result of scans every
2 minutes. I think that this was discussed lots of
times. I just wanted to ask a question.
why it is not acceptable to do scans also every time I
left-click on the applet, to show updated results?
Or at least add a "refresh list" button... this
21 matches
Mail list logo
