[Battlemesh] Thanks for the v5 ;-)

Michel de Geofroy micheldegeofroy at gmail.com
Tue Apr 3 17:18:57 UTC 2012


I Agree

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Benjamin Henrion <bh at udev.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Gabriel Kerneis <kerneis at pps.jussieu.fr>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:17:21PM +0800, Yeoh Chun-Yeow wrote:
> >> I think that we need to ensure our binary images ready before the
> >> event. Off course, we need identify the hardware platform earlier.
> >
> > Sadly, this is hardly surprising.  For instance, six months ago, on this
> > mailing-list:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:20:52PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> >> 2011/9/22 Marek Lindner <lindner_marek at yahoo.de>
> >> > On Thursday, September 22, 2011 06:52:22 Andrew Parnell wrote:
> >> > > One thing I would like to suggest is to have a more formalised
> arrangement
> >> > > for the test network that we will use for WBMv5.  Though I am a
> newcomer
> >> > > to this, one thing that I couldn't help but notice was that many of
> us
> >> > > were there for 5-6 days before we were actually deploying the
> Foneras and
> >> > > building a test mesh.  It seems that this is not the most efficient
> use of
> >> > > our time.  Perhaps we could find a way to require that each
> team/group who
> >> > > wishes to submit code for testing must have this ready to go
> /before/ the
> >> > > event begins.  This way, a firmware image can be prepared in
> advance, and
> >> > > once people begin to arrive, we can set up the mesh immediately and
> have
> >> > > much more time for testing.  We would probably also want to have
> another
> >> > > deadline(s) sometime in the middle of the event perhaps, where
> updates can
> >> > > be provided and a new firmware image(s) compiled.  Hopefully this
> would
> >> > > allow us to use the short time we have to the maximum benefit, and
> we
> >> > > could really get some good tests/statistics compiled as a result.
> >> >
> >> > It is not that we did not try in the past. We had deadlines / teams /
> etc
> >> > but clearly lacked direction imposed by a "test leader" or "test
> group". The
> >> > misery starts when you ask the question: What are we going to test ?
> You
> >> > will find people chiming in that are fairly silent most of the time
> but feel
> >> > they have to "defend" their protocol.  In short: As long as we don't
> have
> >> > someone (preferrably a protocol neutral person) who takes matters
> into his
> >> > hands I don't expect any improvement this year either.
> >> >
> >> I'm also a newcomer at WBM, the last one was my first one. Before I went
> >> there, I thought that this was an event where the main objective was to
> test
> >> mesh protocols and put them in battle. But after, my thought was that
> this
> >> is an event to meet people and speak about some geek topics.
> >> For me that is good, but maybe to push the original objective a little
> more
> >> would be nice.
> >> One of the main restrictions I found is the hardware. Fonera is a very
> >> limited device and when you are running 4 or 5 protocols, it can do some
> >> strange things, and the tests become unreliable. Maybe we should put
> some
> >> efforts in to have another kind of hardware, we can find some sponsors
> who
> >> can give us some hardware. Or maybe we can put a special tax for
> spending on
> >> hardware (10€ per person = 600€ = 10 new devices).
> >
> > Proposing and discussing some test scenarios in advance is definitely an
> > improvement, but it turned out to be useless without a reliable mesh
> setup to
> > perform the actual measurements.
>
> Investing in a permanent testbed would not hurt.
>
> --
> Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
> FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-3500762
> "In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
> patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
> Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
> software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
> court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
> favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
> democratically elected legislators."
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20120403/7402f67d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Battlemesh mailing list