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
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
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
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.
--
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
Well, I can't draw to save my life, so no graphical aids for this idea,
but...
I think the networks should be shape-coded.
For example, network 1 should be a square in a larger circle, network 2
should be a triangle in a larger circle, network 3 should be a circle in a
larger circle. The larger
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:51:21PM -0400, Frederick Grose wrote:
Found an image labelled 'OFW wireless boot icon',
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/File:Wireless.png,
and added to the choices (see attachment).
I quite like the new ones (point + waves + 0-2 bars).
CU Sascha
--
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
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
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
* 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
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.
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
