After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 607575 - Order of available wireless networks should be by strength, not alphabetical.
Order of available wireless networks should be by strength, not alphabetical.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: NetworkManager
Classification: Platform
Component: nm-applet
0.7.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Dan Williams
Dan Williams
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-01-20 17:48 UTC by Philip Muskovac
Modified: 2010-09-18 19:14 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Philip Muskovac 2010-01-20 17:48:06 UTC
I expect my home network to be at the top of the list
Instead, it is listed way down on a sub-menu below many other neighborhood networks.

The wireless network applet lists available wireless networks. Five networks are listed on the primary drop-down menu and any remainder networks are listed under a "More networks..." sub-menu. The networks are listed alphabetically by Essid, however, in a location with many wireless networks (for example an apartment complex), chances are, the user will want to connect to a strong, close network (their home network) rather than a distant one. It would make more sense to order the networks by signal strength so that close-by networks will appear at the top of the main list, and very weak ones will be on the sub-menu.

Originally filed as 
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager-applet/+bug/485041
Comment 1 Dan Williams 2010-01-20 22:24:20 UTC
This has actualyl been discussed before, I can't find the bug right now.  But there are a few reasons it's not handled this way:

1) Your "home" network will not always be the highest strength
2) You'll always know the *name* of the wifi network you want to connect to, either becuase you set it up, or because somebody told you which one to connect to.  Strength doesn't really mean anything, and people don't just connect to random networks.
3) The NM 0.8 applet automatically puts "known" networks near the top, regardless of the alphabetical sorting, so this should handle your issue much better (your home network will always be near the top) while preserving the ability to easily find a named network the first time.
Comment 2 Flávio Etrusco 2010-01-21 17:22:07 UTC
Dan, what about putting the networks in order of strength in the initial/main menu and then the submenu displays all the networks ordered alphabetically?
Comment 3 Dan Williams 2010-01-21 22:02:51 UTC
I still don't think that's very relevant given the issues I raised above.  If there's only 5 items in the main menu, surely it's easy to find the one you want when your "home" networks are listed at the top anyway?
Comment 4 Flávio Etrusco 2010-01-21 22:48:21 UTC
The problem is the bad impression it gives when you're setting up the network for the first time.
And about item 1, although it's not always the highest strength, it usually is, isn't?
Comment 5 Flávio Etrusco 2010-02-01 21:08:22 UTC
Did I say anything wrong? O_o
And many thanks for taking the time to discuss this, Dan.
Comment 6 Ben Root 2010-09-18 19:14:48 UTC
This bug report is now being listed as resolved/fixed, yet there is no comment indicating what fix was applied.

As an additional note, in version 0.8, the behavior is very annoying.  I live in an apartment complex.  My computer can see about 20 networks on average.  The applet shows the first 5 alphabetically named networks, which are all incredibly weak, and none are mine.  Only my wireless router is listed with all bars.

I do see the logic behind alphabetically listing networks, because it does help to find the desired network faster.  However, this only makes sense if you are listing *all* of the networks.  In the short list of 5 networks, it makes more sense to list only the strongest networks (in alphabetical order, of course).