Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> 2009/10/22 Tomeu Vizoso :
>>> What would be more reliable in the under a tree use case: ad-hoc or
>>> mesh with a max of 1 hop?
>> Mesh, since everyone does their own beaconing.
>
> That's my guess too. But the hard
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> I now realize we'd forgotten about Cerebro. If anyone is going to take
> the hard road, it may be a viable option -- did we ever have a clear
> plan of what it'd take to integrate it "fully" (where 'fully' means
> that things "just work" at least roughly to where they do on
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I think both the beaconing and the forwarding will have a big effect
> on the reliability of the network, but it still won't bring us to any
> degree of reliability.
In first reading, t sounds self-contradictory -- but what you are
saying is
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:31, Martin Dengler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:36:50PM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> One of the biggest headaches we have to deal with, even
>> when we have infrastructure networks, is the bug where every XO has a
>> different set of neighbours on the neighbourho
2009/10/22 Martin Langhoff :
> That's my guess too. But the hard-to-answer question is "how much more
> reliable"? So we can answer "is it worth the big effort"?
I think both the beaconing and the forwarding will have a big effect
on the reliability of the network, but it still won't bring us to a
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:36:50PM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
> One of the biggest headaches we have to deal with, even
> when we have infrastructure networks, is the bug where every XO has a
> different set of neighbours on the neighbourhood view. Now we'd be
> making that bug a feature.
Isn't th
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Tomeu Vizoso :
>> What would be more reliable in the under a tree use case: ad-hoc or
>> mesh with a max of 1 hop?
>
> Mesh, since everyone does their own beaconing.
That's my guess too. But the hard-to-answer question is "how muc
2009/10/22 Tomeu Vizoso :
> What would be more reliable in the under a tree use case: ad-hoc or
> mesh with a max of 1 hop?
Mesh, since everyone does their own beaconing.
But they would both break our ideas of collaboration quite
significantly. One of the biggest headaches we have to deal with, e
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:03, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Martin Langhoff :
>> They are -- but it's pretty awkward to activate. I am arguing that
>> ad-hoc networking with a preset ESSID, and Salut should be the
>> transparent fallback. Just like the mesh was on earlier releases.
>
> We alre
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> But my point still remains - networks will split undesirably, there
> will be some joins too but you can't control them and they will be
> unlikely to be as desired.
>From a user PoV, that is largely true also w the 8.2.1 stack (though
we te
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:41:22AM +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > 2. This kind of situation will happen frequently:
> >
> > A <-> B <-> C
> >
> > B can see both users A and C on his network view. A can only see B,
> > and C can only
2009/10/22 Daniel Drake :
>> Ok, but if they are close enough it will work. The question is: if we
>> tell all our nodes to use the same ESSID (or a set of 3 ESSIDs, one
>> per freq), will independently created networks join and split
>> reasonably well?
>
> No - ad-hoc is so simple that there is n
2009/10/22 Martin Langhoff :
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> We already discussed this a lot in another thread. It should not be
>> automatic. The thread is titled "[Sugar-devel] [Design] Ad-hoc
>> networks - New Icons"
>
> Yep -- I did read that thread, way back.
>
>> In
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> We already discussed this a lot in another thread. It should not be
> automatic. The thread is titled "[Sugar-devel] [Design] Ad-hoc
> networks - New Icons"
Yep -- I did read that thread, way back.
> In ad-hoc, there is just one beacon maste
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 02:31:28PM +1100, James Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +1300, Tabitha Roder wrote:
> > Just checking this scenario I am a teacher and have just been
> > handed 5 XOs for my students. I am told you can have a child start
> > writing a story and then h
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:24:08AM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
> eek! no need to get dirty; you can create an ad-hoc network from a
> single click in the frame, and then the others can join it from the
> neighborhood view.
Sounds neat. Doesn't work. #9540 raised.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.l
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 06:41:54 pm Ed McNierney wrote:
> I also want to point out that in cases where 802.11s mesh operation is
> desirable, the Open802.11s stack (http://www.open80211s.org/) should
> be investigated. There's no reason Open802.11s software can't be used
> to make an XO a Mes
2009/10/22 James Cameron :
> You can manually establish an Ad-Hoc network between several XO-1.5's in
> build os32 using the following temporary procedure:
>
> 1. start Terminal and become root,
eek! no need to get dirty; you can create an ad-hoc network from a
single click in the frame, and then
2009/10/22 Tabitha Roder :
> No mesh:
>
> Just checking this scenario I am a teacher and have just been handed 5
> XOs for my students. I am told you can have a child start writing a story
> and then have the other children join in to write together.
> How does the teacher do this - in less tha
G'day Tabitha,
I think I can relax you a bit ... there seems to have been a minor
misunderstanding caused by ambiguous terms.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +1300, Tabitha Roder wrote:
> No mesh:
>
> Just checking this scenario I am a teacher and have just been
> handed 5 XOs for my stud
Tabitha Roder wrote:
> No mesh:
>
> Just checking this scenario I am a teacher and have just been handed 5
> XOs for my students. I am told you can have a child start writing a story
> and then have the other children join in to write together.
Yes. This is really true, on the XO-1, right no
No mesh:
Just checking this scenario I am a teacher and have just been handed 5
XOs for my students. I am told you can have a child start writing a story
and then have the other children join in to write together.
How does the teacher do this - in less than 100 words and not one word
technical
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 07:48:06AM +0545, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Ad-hoc will work well for the cases where the children get together in
> a small space and explicitly create a throwaway network. If it is
> created automatically, I predict we will just get an unreliable mess.
And we won't really be
2009/10/22 Martin Langhoff :
> They are -- but it's pretty awkward to activate. I am arguing that
> ad-hoc networking with a preset ESSID, and Salut should be the
> transparent fallback. Just like the mesh was on earlier releases.
We already discussed this a lot in another thread. It should not be
On Oct 21, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Hasn't mesh proved useful in deployments?
No, it hasn't. We actively discourage anyone from using it, and I'm
not aware of any successful applications of it except in test and
demonstration situations.
I suspect you are, like many, many pe
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 21:11, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > But I don't know if NetworkManager and Sugar are fully organized
> > to do "Ad Hoc" networking, presence, messaging, file sharing, etc
> > in the absence of an access point.
>
> They are; the final piece was work by Tomeu Vizoso to
Hi,
> But I don't know if NetworkManager and Sugar are fully organized
> to do "Ad Hoc" networking, presence, messaging, file sharing, etc
> in the absence of an access point.
They are; the final piece was work by Tomeu Vizoso to add a UI for
creating/joining ad-hoc networks in Sugar, wh
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> But I don't know if NetworkManager and Sugar are fully organized to do
> "Ad Hoc" networking, presence, messaging, file sharing, etc in the
> absence of an access point.
They are -- but it's pretty awkward to activate. I am arguing that
ad-ho
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 20:54, John Gilmore wrote:
>> On Oct 20 2009, at 19:04, Tabitha Roder was caught saying:
>> > no mesh network showing in neighbourhood
>>
>> My understanding is that mesh is not currently supported in the
>> WLAN firmware for the new chips. I am not sure what the plan of
>>
So mesh networking is going away in favor of ad-hocs? If so, why?
Hasn't mesh proved useful in deployments?
Best regards,
Tiago Marques
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:54 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> On Oct 20 2009, at 19:04, Tabitha Roder was caught saying:
>> > no mesh network showing in neighbourhood
> On Oct 20 2009, at 19:04, Tabitha Roder was caught saying:
> > no mesh network showing in neighbourhood
>
> My understanding is that mesh is not currently supported in the
> WLAN firmware for the new chips. I am not sure what the plan of
> action is in regards to mesh support for 1.5.
For lapt
Hi,
> The media is split into a /boot ext2 partition with the rest
> setup as ext4 so that OFW can read olpc.fth and do other
> operations without needing to have support for ext4. I noticed
> the inidicator too and find it very confusing from an end-user UI
> perspective. One shoul
mitch wrote:
> I don't like the idea of a second copy - "A man with 2 watches never
> knows what time it is".
but in this case, both watches would be right, and that would be
very interesting information indeed. :-)
(i.e., they should never be out of sync, and if they are, then it's
better to
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 2009/10/21 Tabitha Roder :
>> 2009/10/21 Mitch Bradley :
>>> /boot/olpc_version usually contains the right number.
>>>
>> no such file or directory
>
> Maybe you don't have /boot mounted, or maybe there is a bug in the
> build system now that
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:18:54AM +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> The convention is that the OS build is identified by someting in the
> form of /etc/foo-release ("lsb-release").
The SoaS plan is to create /etc/soas-release, FWIW.
> cheers,
> m
Martin
pgpKeeV0I5lGX.pgp
Description: PGP signat
2009/10/21 Martin Langhoff :
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> Maybe you don't have /boot mounted, or maybe there is a bug in the
>> build system now that we moved to a separate boot partition. We should
>> probably write the version on both partitions.
>
> Yep - /etc/olpc_
On Oct 20 2009, at 19:04, Tabitha Roder was caught saying:
> no mesh network showing in neighbourhood
My understanding is that mesh is not currently supported in the
WLAN firmware for the new chips. I am not sure what the plan of
action is in regards to mesh support for 1.5.
> the new record act
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> I don't like the idea of a second copy - "A man with 2 watches never knows
> what time it is".
If we can make sure /boot is mounted, a symlink -- will do :-) The
convention is that the OS build is identified by someting in the form
of /etc/
I don't like the idea of a second copy - "A man with 2 watches never
knows what time it is".
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>
>> Maybe you don't have /boot mounted, or maybe there is a bug in the
>> build system now that we moved to a separate bo
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Maybe you don't have /boot mounted, or maybe there is a bug in the
> build system now that we moved to a separate boot partition. We should
> probably write the version on both partitions.
Yep - /etc/olpc_build is probably a good location for
2009/10/21 Tabitha Roder :
> 2009/10/21 Mitch Bradley :
>> /boot/olpc_version usually contains the right number.
>>
> no such file or directory
Maybe you don't have /boot mounted, or maybe there is a bug in the
build system now that we moved to a separate boot partition. We should
probably write t
2009/10/21 Mitch Bradley :
> /boot/olpc_version usually contains the right number.
>
no such file or directory
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
/boot/olpc_version usually contains the right number.
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Tabitha Roder wrote:
>
>> OLPC release 11 Leonidas
>> Sugar 0.84.2
>> Firmware Q3A11
>>
>
> Yeah, those OSs don't report themselves correctly. The XOs probably
> were sent with
Thanks Ed, putting things in trac now we are "testing" with these XO
1.5 machines
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
One can also check the 1.5 tickets at http://dev.laptop.org/1.5
- Ed
P.S. Remember - if it's not in trac, it doesn't exist. If you find a
problem, check trac and open a ticket if it's not already there.
Tabitha correctly labeled this thread as "playing" with 1.5, which is
fine and
45 matches
Mail list logo
