Comments inline:
My point was that there are already hundreds of users already on ath5k
and ath9k and that obviously you will get a biased view of MadWifi /
ath5k situation (I don't consider MadWifi any type of alternative to
ath9k).
We have way more users than this running just our version. There are
probably tens of thousands of "users" (embedded systems) that run some
flavor of madwifi.
The development of any software should happen with the user's needs and
requirements in mind
Note I didn't say otherwise.
Your comments, at best, give short shrift to the many, many embedded users,
esp those who run the 2.4.x kernel. Does anyone actually think it would be
practical to remotely upgrade tens of thousands of unattended devices, some
of which are miles away from the nearest human, to a 2.6 kernel? Even if
only 5% fail to come back online, it would be a logistical and
customer-relations disaster. These aren't windows desktops where someone can
just curse and then powercycle.
Well to me they are clear and I don't need a survey to understand
this. ath5k currently lacks:
* DFS
* Multi-BSS AP functionality
* Roaming
* ANI
You also need to add to this list:
* Fast-frames
* Compression
* Half / quarter channels (hopefully done in a sensible fashion like AirOS
without the countrycode / regdomain BS)
We need to aknowledge that "user" includes not just those surfing on their
laptops, but the far larger number of embedded devices running madwifi each
and every day, in critical systems, with excellent reliability.
Tom S.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
