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 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 mesh. I >>>>> think >>>>> we can expect mesh support again soon ;) >>>> >>>> From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that >>>> does >>>> not need any infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Though, the mesh on the XO is handled automatically, the ad-hoc >>>> network >>>> requires user interaction to create it. I wonder if we ever will see a >>>> user using both (not at the same time) on the same machine. To think >>>> about the visual clash, at least. >>> >>> I do wonder if the ad-hoc network should actually be being auto >>> magically created, if the owner is not associated with an available >>> AP, much like the mesh was. We would agree a standard network name (as >>> did olpc-mesh), that way there is a minimum of user required >>> interaction and any Sugar users in range would auto connect to the >>> same network for collaboration. >> >> The problem with that would be that you'd have a number of devices >> suddenly sharing the same network. If your in a group of users unlike >> in the mesh environment only one person/device would create this. > > > Apologies for being technically naive; > > 1). I think if using the same SSID and channel number in ad-hoc mode, > devices will work together. There's no security, authentication, the > wireless NICS are all just randomly broadcasting and listening. > > Tomeu: If has made it into one of the XO builds, I can run tests next > week (3 XOs + 1 Mac). > > 2). Alternatively if I'm wrong about 1, how about a behaviour that auto > create a default ad-hoc network if it's not visible already, and joins > one if it is? If the creator goes away/offline, the network obviously > fails and one of the other clients creates it again (after short random > delay), and the rest re-auto join. > > Thinking about the benefits of a manual ad-hoc process; it does allow a > (technically aware) teacher to create a named wireless network on their > machine for their class to join, thereby helping isolate different > working groups of students. Perhaps also when a class is split into > working groups, the team leader of each could be instructed to create a > named ad-hoc network for the rest of their group to use (though not sure > how able our demographic would be for such an operation, probably 9-12 > year olds would be capable).
I like that group work. I always thought of the ad-hoc network being something a group of kids could connect to for a group work. Not something the whole school would connect to. > Think I'd still much prefer the ad-hoc as mesh-like auto set-up > behaviour, it's better for out target demographic, reduces UI, and lets > collaboration 'just work' when no AP is in use. 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. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel