On 05/06/2010 02:34 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > simon wrote: > > Did we settle on the naming of the network. I was in favor of 'local > > network' as that mimics well the range of the network for me. James > > meant that this could be confused with 'localhost', if I remember > > correctly. 'Our network' was another option. Any good argument, or > > another option? > > > surprisingly, "ad-hoc" describes them pretty well. :-) > seriously, it captures that they are informal, self-managed, and > probably temporary. > > "impromptu" carries some of the same feeling. > > "informal", or "casual" might work, too. it's certainly how i > think of ad-hoc networks -- i.e., the opposite of "managed" or > "requiring infrastructure". > > paul
Thanks Paul for your reply. Actually, you are right, "Ad-hoc Network [channel number]" sounds good. Is "Ad-hoc" the correct way to write it? Found many different ways on the net. I have attached new patches to the ticket 9845 including the famous maya numerals icons (thanks Fred for the hint). I quite like them :) I could do rpms, too - if someone would want to test it (please mind the NM ones if you want to apply the patches by hand). Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel