> Am 31.08.2016 um 21:29 schrieb Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net>: > > Reyk Floeter [r...@openbsd.org] wrote: >> >> Ok, it makes some sense to have this information for Ethernet. > > I am strongly opposed to this change on wired or wireless. Why the > push for having less information? > >> For 11n and all these new wireless rates it doesn't provide any useful >> information, what does "HT-MCS0" mean? Or "HT-MCS70"? In this case >> it would be much more useful to have the actual speed and not some >> obscure technical details from 802.11. > > This is a standard. On 11n, everything from MCS0 to MCS7 is > the single stream version of MCS8 to MCS15. The PHY rate can't tell > you which is in effect alone. We don't support >MCS7 yet so maybe > this is less obvious. > > You want to go away from having to know anything about the 11n > MCS table to figure out your expected baud rate? You should > display both. > > I'd much rather know what modulation and error coding scheme is in > effect, than know only what the physical data rate is. It's utterly > meaningless by itself. >
Whatever, you know what you're talking about but I guess the MCS table is totally uninteresting for most users like me. For them, it is "utterly meaningless" to have some code and acronym instead of the actual calculated speed. It's a blinkenlight but it will probably stay where it is. Reyk
