On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Sameer Vermasve...@sfsu.edu wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Benjamin M.
Schwartzbmsch...@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Sameer Verma wrote:
Hi Ben,
So, you were referring to NM's inability to handle switching to hostap
(making the wireless card act as an
Sameer Verma wrote:
Hi Ben,
So, you were referring to NM's inability to handle switching to hostap
(making the wireless card act as an AP)? http://hostap.epitest.fi/
I'm aware of hostapd. In fact, I'm running it right now on an Athlon box
in the living room, which acts as my apartment's
Let me summarize this thread:
a) User Point of view
Mesh: created automatically, small networks
Ad-Hoc: user created, very small networks, internet connection sharing
b) Technically
Mesh: not range limited (package forwarding), no creator principle
Ad-Hoc: range limited, best 2 people to avoid
Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com:
H. Are you sure this is an accurate statement? I was under the
impression that mesh forwarding support had been removed/disabled from OLPCs
implementation a long time ago, since soon after the Mongolia deployment.
Mesh was
Peter Robinson wrote:
Hmm... so if other people join that network, and then I leave, does the
network not persist? I haven't experimented with this yet.
yes, it will persist
Really? My understanding of the ad-hoc network is that it basically
puts the user that creates it wifi card into
Also, I believe
NetworkManager still has no concept of AP mode
Do you mean that with NM you can't become an AP ?
Something like that:
http://magazine.redhat.com/2008/10/16/video-fedora-10-connection-sharing/
?
Or did I misunderstand what you meant ?
--
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
Also, I believe
NetworkManager still has no concept of AP mode
Do you mean that with NM you can't become an AP ?
Yes. That video does _not_ show the connection-sharing computer becoming
an Access Point. It shows it becoming a node on an ad hoc network.
Hi,
the functionality to create ad-hoc networks has been created. Two little
things are missing to finish this feature [1]:
a) transmitting the creator's color (patch pending)
b) new icons for the ad-hoc networks
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is the mesh
icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
I think new icons would be best, to distinguish from the
On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is the mesh
icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
I think new
On 11 Aug 2009, at 11:21, Simon Schampijer wrote:
On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is
the mesh
icon
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is
the mesh
icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
I think new icons would be best, to distinguish from the
On 11 Aug 2009, at 12:08, Peter Robinson wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network
to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is
the mesh
icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
I
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:35:15PM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote:
Tomeu: If has made it into one of the XO builds, I can run tests next
week (3 XOs + 1 Mac).
It's in my SoaS-on-XO-1 builds (and other SoaS builds, I believe).
Regards,
--Gary
Martin
pgpbBmIo3eeth.pgp
Description: PGP
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de wrote:
On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one?
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that does not
need any infrastructure.
I disagree. The mesh connections are automatic, and the presence of
them does not indicate the presence of another computer like an ad-hoc
network
On 08/11/2009 02:35 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
On 11 Aug 2009, at 12:08, Peter Robinson wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is
the mesh
icon
On 08/11/2009 03:49 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de wrote:
On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
distinguish
Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that does not
need any infrastructure.
I disagree. The mesh connections are automatic, and the presence of
them does not indicate the presence of another
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
I wonder if the ad-hoc network will scale up to that number of users :/
Though I am not an expert in this area. Maybe Daniel has some more
insights on this topic.
Yes. Ad-hoc networks do not scale at all because they are range limited.
They also
2009/8/11 Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu:
I am becoming very confused. Why does Sugar place an ownership concept on
an ad-hoc network?
Just in principle. Have you tried it?
Create a network and it will be called Ben's network
I'd be relatively confident that I could find Ben on
Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu:
I am becoming very confused. Why does Sugar place an ownership concept on
an ad-hoc network?
Just in principle. Have you tried it?
Create a network and it will be called Ben's network
I'd be relatively confident
2009/8/11 Benjamin M. Schwartz bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu:
Hmm... so if other people join that network, and then I leave, does the
network not persist? I haven't experimented with this yet.
yes, it will persist
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de wrote:
On 08/11/2009 03:49 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de
wrote:
On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
I wonder if the ad-hoc network will scale up to that number of users :/
Though I am not an expert in this area. Maybe Daniel has some more
insights on this topic.
Yes. Ad-hoc networks do not scale at all because they are
Hmm... so if other people join that network, and then I leave, does the
network not persist? I haven't experimented with this yet.
yes, it will persist
Really? My understanding of the ad-hoc network is that it basically
puts the user that creates it wifi card into ad-hoc AP mode and that
On 11 Aug 2009, at 16:11, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de:
From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that
does not
need any infrastructure.
I disagree. The mesh connections are automatic, and the presence of
them does not indicate
2009/8/11 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com:
Hmm... so if other people join that network, and then I leave, does the
network not persist? I haven't experimented with this yet.
yes, it will persist
Really? My understanding of the ad-hoc network is that it basically
puts the user that
On 08/11/2009 05:42 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.de:
I wonder if the ad-hoc network will scale up to that number of users :/
Though I am not an expert in this area. Maybe Daniel has some more
insights on this topic.
Yes. Ad-hoc networks do not scale at
2009/8/11 Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com:
H. Are you sure this is an accurate statement? I was under the
impression that mesh forwarding support had been removed/disabled from OLPCs
implementation a long time ago, since soon after the Mongolia deployment.
Mesh was killing the wireless
Hi Daniel,
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:19, Daniel Drake wrote:
2009/8/11 Gary C Martin g...@garycmartin.com:
H. Are you sure this is an accurate statement? I was under the
impression that mesh forwarding support had been removed/disabled
from OLPCs
implementation a long time ago, since soon
31 matches
Mail list logo
