[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > While you might be able to reduce the space required for either one, I'd > > first toss the BSSID from the default output for scan-wifi. Sacrilege > > to us networking professionals, I'm sure, but to the average user, it's > > just a bunch of numbers that don't have meaning, and it's over 20% of > > your output "budget". > > I'm wary of doing that -- I know a lot of people leave their ESSID's set > to the default value, leaving the BSSID as an increasingly necessary > discriminator. Even though one could (and should) use "-o bssid" to see > the BSSID at that point, I think the more likely reaction is to presume > that there's a bug afoot.
Instead of forcing users to select particular fields to print, which I think is a bit much for a simple status command, why not have BSSID and other less-commonly-needed details printed only when a "verbose" flag is set? -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
