Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Looking at trac, wireless is one of the biggest sources of bugs and the > community can hardly do anything about it. Normally, somebody who > complains can be told to fix the code, but with a closed wireless > firmware, complaining is the only possible action. >
When you say "Looking at trac" do you mean you _really_ looked at trac? Well, I had a look at trac and found the following bug reports (includes open+closed). Of course, this is no account of what percentage are still open, or what percentage are blocking and so on, but it may just give us an idea of the situation. What users experience as "network" from an activity's point of view (let's call this "network experience") encompasses all of the following pieces: kernel: 286 bugs* Journal: 232 bugs* wireless (firmware+driver): 189 bugs open firmware: 162 bugs* salut: 71bugs network manager: 69 bugs presence service: about 30 bugs Total bugs relating to "network experience": 189+71+69+30=359 *Not necessarily part of the network experience, but was only listed here to provide perspective. So what part of the bugs that affect your "network experience" are _really_ related to the mesh network? "Less" than half! Why "less"? Because half (189) involve both the driver+firmware and the part that you "cannot fix" is a subset of those. <cynicism> You also said "A 'feature' which is an obstacle without visible benefits to users/developers has no inherent value". Let's try to follow this rule for a moment: the kernel has 286 bug reports and journal has 232. Do you suggest abandoning the kernel and substitute with something else (say.... "windows" [just a random thought ;-)]). What about Journal? </cynicism> Pol -- Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos Graduate student Viral Communications MIT Media Lab Tel: +1 (617) 459-6058 http://www.mit.edu/~ypod/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel