On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 09:53 -0500, Pete Graner wrote: > I've also noticed that the Network Manager drop down that lists all of > the available networks isn't the same between wireless cards. Each card maintains it's own internal (to the driver and the hardware) list of scan results, which will of course vary based on supported channels/frequencies, antenna characteristics, etc. This is the list that NM pulls from, so technically it shouldn't be surprising that you've got different APs for different cards. >From a user-perspective though, it seems odd that you'd have differences between cards that are even on the same band (ie, both b/g or both a). But then again, it's probably wierd for lots of users to have two wireless cards to start with. Wireless in general is quite a bit more unpredictable. > I have a Cisco 350 PCMCIA card and I'll plug it into the same notebook. > When I click on Network Manager I see both wireless cards but the Cisco > card has 2 "other" APs that the BCM driver isn't seeing. Cisco 340/350 cards have higher transmit power than most other cards (up to 50mW I think), and may have better antennas as well. The hardware/firmware itself also filters out non-broadcasting access points from scans. > Also Network Manger shows zero (0) signal bars on the applet, but when > clicking on the applet shows me that the the AP I'm associated to is at > 100%... Linux drivers notoriously SUCK when it comes to reporting signal strength. The open Broadcom driver actually doesn't support signal strength yet at all, but that's being worked on. Dan -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list