On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> This is irrelevant, really. Protocols are designed with certain
>> assumptions. Those assumptions (mostly having to do with the behavior
>> and cost of broadcasts) were true when the protocols were designed,
>>
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> This is irrelevant, really. Protocols are designed with certain
> assumptions. Those assumptions (mostly having to do with the behavior
> and cost of broadcasts) were true when the protocols were designed,
> and are no longer true today. This is the way of all software,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Morgan Collett wrote:
>> Also don't blame avahi for the fact that we send out updates every
>> time you alt-tab between shared activities, so that your icon can jump
>> to the appropriate snowflake on everyone else's Neighborhood Views...
>
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> IEEE chose to make wi-fi networks look like 802.11 LANs, similar to
> ethernet. It might have been a bad idea in retrospect, but now we
> have to live with it.
>
> AFAIK, the bulk of the problem with multicasts over 802.11s (and not
> all
Morgan Collett wrote:
> Also don't blame avahi for the fact that we send out updates every
> time you alt-tab between shared activities, so that your icon can jump
> to the appropriate snowflake on everyone else's Neighborhood Views...
> as well as sending who joined and left...
Mature GUIs have a
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> When I read the Zeroconf book, I got the impression that the
>> _standard_ was carefully designed to minimize needless broadcasts and
>> scale well in real scenarios. I can't comment on the current Avahi
>> _implementation_ though.
>
> This is true for wired networks; n
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 14:18, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> Martin Langhoff wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
My suggestions: DNS-SD and libepc (http://live.gnome.org/libepc/).
There's no need for
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>>> My suggestions: DNS-SD and libepc (http://live.gnome.org/libepc/).
>>> There's no need for Sugar-specific solutions here; we just need to use
>>> existi
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> My suggestions: DNS-SD and libepc (http://live.gnome.org/libepc/).
>> There's no need for Sugar-specific solutions here; we just need to use
>> existing standard solutions.
>
> Yep - I want existing standard stuf
