Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 26 April 2010 01:01, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: What do you do with scan results that show an ad-hoc network is available with the same name? Pick one: with the same name as what? Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/23/2010 08:42 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:18:10PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: Oh, and if you suspend and resume you get another three mesh icons created, and then another three, ... hey, this is fun! A new patch is attached to the ticket fixing this issue. The NM rpms are listed in the ticket, too. Oh, this was only about the Ad-hoc Mesh icons then? I guess your patch doesn't fix this bug for the actual Mesh icons? CU Sascha Yeah, about the local networks, or however we call them. The same logic can be easily applied for the mesh icons, too. Regards, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/26/2010 06:01 AM, James Cameron wrote: What do you do with scan results that show an ad-hoc network is available with the same name? Pick one: 1. show an access point icon for it (the current behaviour in os121), 2. show an ad-hoc mesh icon for it, with a badge showing that it is active. This might reduce the need to communicate the chosen channel between users in a class. The code does only display the three icons for channel 1, 6, 11. You click on the icon and join the network or create it. The code is the same for both cases, this is a general 'feature' of ad-hoc networks. One could show a badge for 'active' networks indeed, at the moment I filter those cases out, to not display 'doubles'. Regards, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: Fine with me. As others have raised this interest before. 'Our' sounds quite good to me. How about 'local'? I did consider Local but decided against it because of the dual meaning ... local to the computer, as in localhost. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
What do you do with scan results that show an ad-hoc network is available with the same name? Pick one: 1. show an access point icon for it (the current behaviour in os121), 2. show an ad-hoc mesh icon for it, with a badge showing that it is active. This might reduce the need to communicate the chosen channel between users in a class. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/23/2010 03:18 AM, James Cameron wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: based on the discussion in this thread I have created a first patch attached to ticket #9845 [1] implementing the three default ad hoc networks for channel 1, 6 and 11. Merged with my other wireless changes and tested on XO-1.5. Clicking on one of the new icons doesn't seem to create an ad-hoc network. I didn't look into why yet. Maybe something in what I've changed. You will need this fix to the NM to make it work [1]. If we do not get new NM rpms soon I can upload the patched rpms. [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/?h=NETWORKMANAGER_0_7 * Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel? Yes, three, one for each of the three well separated channels one, six and eleven. The icons should look different to each other in some way so that they can be chosen by voice among the users. Currently they are not. As seen in [2]. I hope the designers can come up with something smart. [2] http://dev.laptop.org/attachment/ticket/9845/adhoc_default_networks.png My preference is a distinctive colour and brightness set with large localised numerals over the icon. The icons should look the same on all laptops, and should not look at all like the XO-1 mesh icons. I would not go into the business to localize the icons. An icon with a clear symbol on it would be sufficient. The user does not care if that means a channel number or not. In general, if the code should go into 0.84 we should make sure it is as less invasive as possible. * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? No. I'd prefer we lose the word Mesh for these icons. I suggest the word Our or My instead of Mesh. Fine with me. As others have raised this interest before. 'Our' sounds quite good to me. How about 'local'? * I do not save the connection to the nm-config file and don't mark them to autoconnect, so we do not autoconnect when starting Sugar. I think, as an ad-hoc network is not a persistent configuration this makes sense. Yes, certainly. Great. * Should we add an icon for 'mesh-network-connected' to better represent the mesh network we are currently connected to? I don't understand this question, sorry. Oh, maybe you mean that the icons should indicate connection status. Yes! In the same way that access point icons are changed; parentheses either side. Right, that was the idea. * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? As the XO has only one network device, i guess this is not a common scenario. No opinion. * Remove the 'Create Network' ability of the wireless frame device palette: As we have the default ad-hoc networks we may not need the ability to create adhoc networks anymore. It may be more confusing then of any help, what do others think? Yes, remove it. I will ask Tomeu as he was the original coder of the Feature if we will make the changes upstream, too. Thanks, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/22/2010 09:09 PM, Frederick Grose wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Frederick Grosefgr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Simon Schampijersi...@schampijer.dewrote: On 04/22/2010 06:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mikus Grinbergsmi...@bga.com wrote: To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. I like that! If you want a group to join you on ch 1, it's hard to guide them through the process. Having the number or a shape (that isn't used elsewhere) in the middle of the circle(s) would be great. m I actually thought about that today, too. The problem is with localization. I guess it does not have to be a number, can be another symbol that tells me 1, 6, 11. Though, maybe Gary or Eben have an idea how that could be visually represented and how the status (connected, not connected) can be added to the icon. Maybe the radio standards organizations already have something, but these symbols came to mind (attached). I prefer the simpler Maya numerals [1] because they are graphically simpler and correspond with the 5-MHz separation of center-channel frequencies. Channel 1 at 2412 MHz 0 5 x 5 MHz difference0 Channel 6 2437 5 x 5 MHz difference0 Channel 11 2462 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_numerals Hi Frederick, I like those, too. They are simple, and can even have a meaning without knowing the maya numerals. Thanks for that hint, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/22/2010 05:44 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? Please don't. Besides given two identically named sets of networks on XO-1, it will mislead people into thinking a) these are interoperable with Mesh networks and b) they work like Mesh networks (i.e. do packet forwarding). Point taken. 'Our Network' or 'Local network' would be two possible options. * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? Given that most of the time the gateway only has a single official IPv4 address, NAT is required anyway. NetworkManager doesn't support IPv6 connection sharing yet [1], so we can't support it either. An interesting option might be to use a bridge on the gateway. Will DHCP be used for connecting to existing ad-hoc networks? Right, connection sharing is only available for IPv4 in NM. This should work out of the box though. I guess the general feature is not as important for now. NetworkManager sets up the wireless card to work as an ad-hoc wifi node that others can join. The routing will be set up between the new network and the primary network connection, and DHCP is used for assigning IP addresses on the new shared wifi network. DNS queries are also forwarded to upstream nameservers transparently. [1] [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ConnectionSharing Was that the missing link? Sorry, I did not fully get your sentence above. Thanks, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:11:09PM +1000, James Cameron wrote: Oh, and if you suspend and resume you get another three mesh icons created, and then another three, ... hey, this is fun! I thought I'd filed a ticket for this, but can't find it anymore. Can you open a new one, please? Did you restart NetworkManager manually or is this happening even with the crash fixed (i.e. without NM restarting)? CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:00:03AM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: [Name for auto-created ad-hoc networks] Point taken. 'Our Network' or 'Local network' would be two possible options. Local network + channel number sounds fine, though ideally we'd get some feedback from others members of the design team (esp. Eben). [NetworkManager ad-hoc mode] [...] DHCP is used for assigning IP addresses on the new shared wifi network. That sounds like a bridge would Just Work (for non-auto-created ad-hoc networks), thanks. Allowing users to enable connection sharing might be useful, but is independent of your patch. CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/23/2010 04:11 AM, James Cameron wrote: Oh, and if you suspend and resume you get another three mesh icons created, and then another three, ... hey, this is fun! A new patch is attached to the ticket fixing this issue. The NM rpms are listed in the ticket, too. Regards, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:18:10PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: Oh, and if you suspend and resume you get another three mesh icons created, and then another three, ... hey, this is fun! A new patch is attached to the ticket fixing this issue. The NM rpms are listed in the ticket, too. Oh, this was only about the Ad-hoc Mesh icons then? I guess your patch doesn't fix this bug for the actual Mesh icons? CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 12/08/2009 03:04 AM, Reuben K. Caron wrote: Daniel, Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 (1) (2), I've been thinking about this functionality, the change in UI behavior and perhaps the decrease in usability and I don't like it. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own networks..Who designates who creates the network? Why do I have to join that network? Why can't I make my own network and have them join me, etc.. All of this is aside from the technical limitations of which channel does my network get created on. Does the user specify channels 1, 6, or 11 when creating the network, or does the channel randomly get set? If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and interference. To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of the networks -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the network allowing other children to join it. The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. When the network has a respective name it is a bit more obvious when that person has left and the reason why the network has failed, this would not be the case given the anonymity of a Mesh Network #. A more long term solution to this problem may be for the XO to sense the loss of the initiator and recreate the network. In this case, the first XO to sense the loss of the network after some period of time would check if another XO has already setup the network, if not the XO would create the network or join the new one if it already exists. Aside from the one pitfall, I think it would be really beneficial to maintain the same UI and appearance of functionality. Further development in this area may also help us get MPP back, at least at the software level. Your thoughts? Regards, Reuben (1) http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9807 (2) http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1604 Hi everyone, based on the discussion in this thread I have created a first patch attached to ticket #9845 [1] implementing the three default ad hoc networks for channel 1, 6 and 11. A screenshot can be found there, too. There are a few open questions about the general approach I want to name here: * Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel? * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? * I do not save the connection to the nm-config file and don't mark them to autoconnect, so we do not autoconnect when starting Sugar. I think, as an ad-hoc network is not a persistent configuration this makes sense. * Should we add an icon for 'mesh-network-connected' to better represent the mesh network we are currently connected to? * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? As the XO has only one network device, i guess this is not a common scenario. * Remove the 'Create Network' ability of the wireless frame device palette: As we have the default ad-hoc networks we may not need the ability to create adhoc networks anymore. It may be more confusing then of any help, what do others think? Thanks, Simon [1] http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9845 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? Please don't. Besides given two identically named sets of networks on XO-1, it will mislead people into thinking a) these are interoperable with Mesh networks and b) they work like Mesh networks (i.e. do packet forwarding). * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? Given that most of the time the gateway only has a single official IPv4 address, NAT is required anyway. NetworkManager doesn't support IPv6 connection sharing yet [1], so we can't support it either. An interesting option might be to use a bridge on the gateway. Will DHCP be used for connecting to existing ad-hoc networks? [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593815 CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote: based on the discussion in this thread I have created a first patch attached to ticket #9845 [1] implementing the three default ad hoc networks for channel 1, 6 and 11. A screenshot can be found there, too. There are a few open questions about the general approach I want to name here: Great to see this in motion! * Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel? +1 * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? Changing name here is important... Even for xo-1+802 compatibility. If the ad-hoc network has a different name, then XO-1+802 can see it and connect to it. Might make sense to keep the icons though - or have another icon variant. Seems important that the icon for these ad-hoc networks must be different from real APs. * I do not save the connection to the nm-config file and don't mark them to autoconnect, so we do not autoconnect when starting Sugar. I think, as an ad-hoc network is not a persistent configuration this makes sense. Sounds reasonable. * Should we add an icon for 'mesh-network-connected' to better represent the mesh network we are currently connected to? It makes sense to keep using a differentiated icon... * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? As the XO has only one network device, i guess this is not a common scenario. I'd say for later and avoid feature creep, though it's been requested separately. I think people working on the 3G modem integration were looking into connection sharing -- it makes sense to ensure that both features play well together... * Remove the 'Create Network' ability of the wireless frame device +1 m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
* Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel? I have written this before -- I do NOT believe that three dumb icons are more intuitive to use than one intelligent icon. The only advantage to three icons is that a new network can be launched with a single click (after having navigated around to find *which* icon to click), whereas an intelligent single icon requires two actions - a hover to call out the palette, then a click on an entry within that palette. To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. If only a single icon is used, it should at all times show a dynamic symbol representing the channel to which the radio is currently tuned (a different channel would be selected via the palette). I think that even very young children would quickly learn which channel to use in which physical location. I fail to see how presenting three icons (which are indistinguishable from each other) helps communication. I vote for one, intelligent, icon. mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mikus Grinbergs mi...@bga.com wrote: To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. I like that! If you want a group to join you on ch 1, it's hard to guide them through the process. Having the number or a shape (that isn't used elsewhere) in the middle of the circle(s) would be great. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On 04/22/2010 06:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mikus Grinbergsmi...@bga.com wrote: To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. I like that! If you want a group to join you on ch 1, it's hard to guide them through the process. Having the number or a shape (that isn't used elsewhere) in the middle of the circle(s) would be great. m I actually thought about that today, too. The problem is with localization. I guess it does not have to be a number, can be another symbol that tells me 1, 6, 11. Though, maybe Gary or Eben have an idea how that could be visually represented and how the status (connected, not connected) can be added to the icon. Regards, Simon ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.dewrote: On 04/22/2010 06:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mikus Grinbergsmi...@bga.com wrote: To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. I like that! If you want a group to join you on ch 1, it's hard to guide them through the process. Having the number or a shape (that isn't used elsewhere) in the middle of the circle(s) would be great. m I actually thought about that today, too. The problem is with localization. I guess it does not have to be a number, can be another symbol that tells me 1, 6, 11. Though, maybe Gary or Eben have an idea how that could be visually represented and how the status (connected, not connected) can be added to the icon. Maybe the radio standards organizations already have something, but these symbols came to mind (attached). --Fred attachment: Channel symbols 1, 6, 11.png___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Frederick Grose fgr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.dewrote: On 04/22/2010 06:10 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mikus Grinbergsmi...@bga.com wrote: To me, the greatest drawback to the existing icon(s) is that they do not show the channel. If you have three icons, for heaven's sake draw them with static symbols (1, 6, 11) to show where a connection would be attempted. I like that! If you want a group to join you on ch 1, it's hard to guide them through the process. Having the number or a shape (that isn't used elsewhere) in the middle of the circle(s) would be great. m I actually thought about that today, too. The problem is with localization. I guess it does not have to be a number, can be another symbol that tells me 1, 6, 11. Though, maybe Gary or Eben have an idea how that could be visually represented and how the status (connected, not connected) can be added to the icon. Maybe the radio standards organizations already have something, but these symbols came to mind (attached). I prefer the simpler Maya numerals [1] because they are graphically simpler and correspond with the 5-MHz separation of center-channel frequencies. Channel 1 at 2412 MHz 0 5 x 5 MHz difference0 Channel 6 2437 5 x 5 MHz difference0 Channel 11 2462 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_numerals ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: based on the discussion in this thread I have created a first patch attached to ticket #9845 [1] implementing the three default ad hoc networks for channel 1, 6 and 11. Merged with my other wireless changes and tested on XO-1.5. Clicking on one of the new icons doesn't seem to create an ad-hoc network. I didn't look into why yet. Maybe something in what I've changed. * Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel? Yes, three, one for each of the three well separated channels one, six and eleven. The icons should look different to each other in some way so that they can be chosen by voice among the users. My preference is a distinctive colour and brightness set with large localised numerals over the icon. The icons should look the same on all laptops, and should not look at all like the XO-1 mesh icons. * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards compatibility'? No. I'd prefer we lose the word Mesh for these icons. I suggest the word Our or My instead of Mesh. * I do not save the connection to the nm-config file and don't mark them to autoconnect, so we do not autoconnect when starting Sugar. I think, as an ad-hoc network is not a persistent configuration this makes sense. Yes, certainly. * Should we add an icon for 'mesh-network-connected' to better represent the mesh network we are currently connected to? I don't understand this question, sorry. Oh, maybe you mean that the icons should indicate connection status. Yes! In the same way that access point icons are changed; parentheses either side. * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an adhoc network? As the XO has only one network device, i guess this is not a common scenario. No opinion. * Remove the 'Create Network' ability of the wireless frame device palette: As we have the default ad-hoc networks we may not need the ability to create adhoc networks anymore. It may be more confusing then of any help, what do others think? Yes, remove it. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
Oh, and if you suspend and resume you get another three mesh icons created, and then another three, ... hey, this is fun! -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
2009/12/8 Reuben K. Caron reu...@laptop.org: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of the networks -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the network allowing other children to join it. Joining an ad-hoc network is the same process as creating one, so this is even easier than you think. The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. This isn't true - the network keeps on running. It's a good idea and is doable, although not for friday. You should put it in trac (and the SL one too). The only thing to keep in mind is that ad-hoc networks are going to be (by design) even less reliable than the mesh. So we need to be careful which usage scenarios we push it for. Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:59 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: It's a good idea and is doable, although not for friday. You should put it in trac (and the SL one too). Done: http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1610 http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9845 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
Hi Reuben, Daniel, On 8 Dec 2009, at 09:59, Daniel Drake wrote: 2009/12/8 Reuben K. Caron reu...@laptop.org: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of the networks -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the network allowing other children to join it. Thanks for pushing on this again, +1 from me. I've been really worried about such a large change in existing workflows, especially with it as such a central feature. Joining an ad-hoc network is the same process as creating one, so this is even easier than you think. The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. This isn't true - the network keeps on running. It's a good idea and is doable, although not for friday. You should put it in trac (and the SL one too). The only thing to keep in mind is that ad-hoc networks are going to be (by design) even less reliable than the mesh. So we need to be careful which usage scenarios we push it for. Daniel: So this would nicely work around the issues you had in the thread about setting up automatic joining of ad-hoc networks to simulate current mesh like work flow. One of the three faux Mesh Channel # icons would need to be clicked in a conscious decision to join a network, so it would only feel like the automatic network join feature had been dropped. Regards, --Gary ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote: Daniel, Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 (1) (2), I've been thinking about this functionality, the change in UI behavior and perhaps the decrease in usability and I don't like it. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own networks..Who designates who creates the network? Why do I have to join that network? Why can't I make my own network and have them join me, etc.. All of this is aside from the technical limitations of which channel does my network get created on. Does the user specify channels 1, 6, or 11 when creating the network, or does the channel randomly get set? If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and interference. To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of the networks -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the network allowing other children to join it. The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. I don't understand why you say this. AFAIK, this is not the expected behavior of ad-hoc networks. When the network has a respective name it is a bit more obvious when that person has left and the reason why the network has failed, this would not be the case given the anonymity of a Mesh Network #. A more long term solution to this problem may be for the XO to sense the loss of the initiator and recreate the network. In this case, the first XO to sense the loss of the network after some period of time would check if another XO has already setup the network, if not the XO would create the network or join the new one if it already exists. Aside from the one pitfall, I think it would be really beneficial to maintain the same UI and appearance of functionality. Further development in this area may also help us get MPP back, at least at the software level. There is no question that we want to avoid changes in this UI --- this is already one of the more complex actions that we expect teachers/students to do. Changing it mid-stream would be very confusing. wad ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:12 PM, John Watlington wrote: On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote: Daniel, Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 (1) (2), I've been thinking about this functionality, the change in UI behavior and perhaps the decrease in usability and I don't like it. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own networks..Who designates who creates the network? Why do I have to join that network? Why can't I make my own network and have them join me, etc.. All of this is aside from the technical limitations of which channel does my network get created on. Does the user specify channels 1, 6, or 11 when creating the network, or does the channel randomly get set? If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and interference. To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view -When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of the networks -Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the network allowing other children to join it. The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. I don't understand why you say this. AFAIK, this is not the expected behavior of ad-hoc networks. Yes, of course, you are correct. I was confusing this with the single- hop MPP mode idea. So I guess there are no pitfalls to this..? When the network has a respective name it is a bit more obvious when that person has left and the reason why the network has failed, this would not be the case given the anonymity of a Mesh Network #. A more long term solution to this problem may be for the XO to sense the loss of the initiator and recreate the network. In this case, the first XO to sense the loss of the network after some period of time would check if another XO has already setup the network, if not the XO would create the network or join the new one if it already exists. Aside from the one pitfall, I think it would be really beneficial to maintain the same UI and appearance of functionality. Further development in this area may also help us get MPP back, at least at the software level. There is no question that we want to avoid changes in this UI --- this is already one of the more complex actions that we expect teachers/ students to do. Changing it mid-stream would be very confusing. Absolutely, explaining the concept of joining Mesh Network # was complicated and confusing enough, it would be a shame to have to re- teach all of that. Since you've corrected my pitfall, do you see any negatives to this? Reuben ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 I believe these tickets deal with the consequences of having long *names* for systems, rather than with whether ad-hoc networks *can* be created on the XO-1.5. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own networks..Who designates who creates the network? If two children want to look at a book, but there is only one copy of that book, I believe the children will eventually solve the problem of who gets to turn the page. To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we: -Create three faux Mesh Channel # icons in the Network view To me, having three icons (to save an extra click) needlessly clutters up Neighborhood View. I would much prefer having a single icon (which dynamically shows the number of the channel to which the hardware is tuned at this instant), together with (while establishing a connection) a palette to allow the user to explicitly indicate (if he wants to) the number of the channel on which he wants his XO to be active. mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
I thought the reason we have this change at the moment is that we have tracked the change done by Sugar development upstream, between 0.82 and 0.84 ... and we have chosen not to merge the XO-1 specific changes we did for 0.82. Today during a simulated training and assessment (for my training certification), I used four XO-1's with build 802, and after being powered up they automatically became aware of each other through their mesh network. I don't see this happening at the moment with XO-1.5 with build os54. Are you, Reuben, also concerned at that loss? We should probably put something about that in release notes. On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:04:52PM -0500, Reuben K. Caron wrote: If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and interference. OpenFirmware has a method to detect channel use and avoid it, and it is used in the NANDblaster feature on XO-1. Avoiding overlaps and interference is not difficult to code, but it is unlikely to work as well as getting a human to make the decision. Decisions made by humans deliver a cognitive bias in favour of the decision. On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:37:03PM -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 I believe these tickets deal with the consequences of having long *names* for systems, rather than with whether ad-hoc networks *can* be created on the XO-1.5. Agreed. Apart from those problems I've found no current issues creating and operating ad-hoc networks on XO-1.5. Sharing activities is a different matter; #9669. To me, having three icons (to save an extra click) needlessly clutters up Neighborhood View. I would much prefer having a single icon (which dynamically shows the number of the channel to which the hardware is tuned at this instant), together with (while establishing a connection) a palette to allow the user to explicitly indicate (if he wants to) the number of the channel on which he wants his XO to be active. Agreed. But I'd also like to see the previous UI restored, even though it won't map to XO-1 semantics, nor even interoperate with the XO-1 network. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Alternative to Create a new wireless network
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:04 AM, James Cameron wrote: On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:04:52PM -0500, Reuben K. Caron wrote: If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and interference. OpenFirmware has a method to detect channel use and avoid it, and it is used in the NANDblaster feature on XO-1. Avoiding overlaps and interference is not difficult to code, but it is unlikely to work as well as getting a human to make the decision. Decisions made by humans deliver a cognitive bias in favour of the decision. More importantly, this breaks reported usage scenarios. I'm told that in Uruguay (back when they mistakenly had laptops acting like MPPs and hosing the network with mesh transmissions) they used the ad-hoc meshes to collaborate. A teacher would have all students in a class click on the 1, 6, or 11 channel to collaborate. The ad-hoc channel should not be randomly selected. It must be 1, 6, or 11 to avoid overlaps. To avoid changing the interface, I would leave all three shown in the neighborhood view and allow the user to select which one they want to use. On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:37:03PM -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO 1.5 I believe these tickets deal with the consequences of having long *names* for systems, rather than with whether ad-hoc networks *can* be created on the XO-1.5. Agreed. Apart from those problems I've found no current issues creating and operating ad-hoc networks on XO-1.5. Sharing activities is a different matter; #9669. To me, having three icons (to save an extra click) needlessly clutters up Neighborhood View. I would much prefer having a single icon (which dynamically shows the number of the channel to which the hardware is tuned at this instant), together with (while establishing a connection) a palette to allow the user to explicitly indicate (if he wants to) the number of the channel on which he wants his XO to be active. Agreed. But I'd also like to see the previous UI restored, even though it won't map to XO-1 semantics, nor even interoperate with the XO-1 network. The lack of interoperability sucks. A future XO-1 release could support ad-hoc networks without using the mesh packet protocol, and restore interoperability, with little downside... wad ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
