Tim: >> I wonder a couple of things: Whether the original poster has tried >> both right clicking and left clicking on the network manager icon. >> And whether they're trying to use access points that aren't >> broadcasting their SSID (which is a complete waste of time). Beartooth: > I have to be missing something here. Why do the wireless settings > on my router allow me a separate choice whether to broadcast SSID, if > one that isn't doing it is useless?? As a (false) security idea, not broadcasting it is a useless thing to do. It actually causes more problems: How do manual and automated systems connect to the right access point, when they don't name themselves? (It's doable, but abnormally.) More so when presented with several unidentified access points, and you're only supposed to use a particular one of them. You might keep trying to use the wrong one(s), you might actually keep on using the wrong ones (on unencrypted systems). The list goes on and on with things that's wrong with hiding SSIDs. There is no benefit in doing so. As to *why* a device gives you an option to hide the SSID, good question. I can't think of any good reason to give you the option, considering that it only causes harm, not good. It's probably offered to appease stupidity amongst the cargo cult breed of users. A much more useful thing would be for the manufacturers to either make sure that devices all had a unique ID, by default (e.g. something matching a sticker on the device), which would still allow network admins which want to have multiple devices with the same ID (for special purposes), by manual reconfiguration, but keep SSIDs unique for everyone else (which is the normal requirement - different networks should have different IDs). That'd avoid the problem that I would see in many homes, where the network configurators would present a list of several access points (yours and the neighbours), all with the same name (something like "AP325"), and the only way you could pick yours from the neighbours was by signal strength (which is open to error). Personally, I think wireless access points are a bad idea for personal use. The average user doesn't have a clue about them. The average access point seems to default to no security, wireless is active, default passwords, configuration allowed over the wireless link, and the same SSID as other access points. That means that most people have an unsecured network, and that their neighbour can reconfigure it, accidentally or on purpose. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
