Ad-hoc Networking

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at
Wed Apr 23 20:26:29 EDT 2008

On 24.04.2008 02:00, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
> (...)
>> This isn't what I was talking about.  Forget about the mesh.  Ban it
>> from your mind.
>> (...) the troublesome Mesh and just live with the 802.11b/g,
> "Ban  (...) the troublesome Mesh" you say. Sigh.

You forgot to quote the "from your mind" part.

> There is not a single piece of software or hardware in any innovative
> project that wasn't or isn't "troublesome" at some point.
> What to we do? We just throw away every important aspect of the project so
> life is easier? I don't think so.

Hey, the above paragraph can be quoted in a distorting way as well:
"There is not a single [...] important aspect of the project". Selective
quoting is fun, really. ;-)

We don't throw away every important aspect of the project, we simply
disable/ignore features as long as they don't work as expected. A
"feature" which is an obstacle without visible benefits to
users/developers has no inherent value.

> Let's drop suspend/resume, sugar and whatever is "troublesome"? Doubt it.
> Think about for a second. Why in the world a whole community of researchers
> worldwide have been investing a decade in mesh network development? Do you
> really consider the 802.11 ad-hoc mode an alternative? Because the IEEE
> itself does not.
> If you think about it you will end up adding relaying capabilities back.
> And I will repeat this one more time. The mesh works. Have you tried it?

Looking at trac, wireless is one of the biggest sources of bugs and the
community can hardly do anything about it. Normally, somebody who
complains can be told to fix the code, but with a closed wireless
firmware, complaining is the only possible action.


More information about the Devel mailing list