video: Inner working of One Laptop per Child (OLPC) Mesh Networking

A tech talk about the architecture of mesh networking on OLPC
communicating even without widespread internet access and how is the
network they create different from the network at your home or office.
At
http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html



AnonGoo

"AnonGoo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>A tech talk about the architecture of mesh networking on OLPC
> communicating even without widespread internet access and how is the
> network they create different from the network at your home or office.
> At
> http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html

Sweet concept!

I hope it's GPL3'd so Microsoft cannot use the mesh concept in its UMPCs or
"Surface" PCs.

jim

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:17:10 -0400, Jim Hubbard rearranged some electrons
to form:

>
> "AnonGoo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>A tech talk about the architecture of mesh networking on OLPC
>> communicating even without widespread internet access and how is the
>> network they create different from the network at your home or office.
>> At
>> http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html
>
> Sweet concept!
>
> I hope it's GPL3'd so Microsoft cannot use the mesh concept in its UMPCs or
> "Surface" PCs.
>
> jim

It is. The software is based on FC6.

http://www.laptop.org/laptop/software/specs.shtml
http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml


--
David M (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled

__/ [ Jim Hubbard ] on Monday 11 June 2007 00:17 \__

>
> "AnonGoo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>A tech talk about the architecture of mesh networking on OLPC
>> communicating even without widespread internet access and how is the
>> network they create different from the network at your home or office.
>> At
>>
http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html
>
> Sweet concept!
>
> I hope it's GPL3'd so Microsoft cannot use the mesh concept in its UMPCs or
> "Surface" PCs.

A point many people seem to miss is that OLPC has this capability which is
one among many reasons those other 'contenders' (the one from Asustek for
example) are simply not suitable for the market OLPC addresses.

--
~~ Best of wishes

http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 120 total, 1 running, 116 sleeping, 0 stopped, 3 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

In article <jE%ai.868$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Jim Hubbard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Sweet concept!
>
> I hope it's GPL3'd so Microsoft cannot use the mesh concept in its UMPCs or
> "Surface" PCs.

Mesh networks are not new, and Microsoft is free to use them, regardless
of what license the one particular mesh implementation in OLPC uses.



--
--Tim Smith

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> A point many people seem to miss is that OLPC has this capability which is
> one among many reasons those other 'contenders' (the one from Asustek for
> example) are simply not suitable for the market OLPC addresses.
>

And it's also a reason (independence from central servers) for it to be
opposed.

>http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html

Could someone please write up a one-paragraph
explanation of what is on the video? Vision
impaired folks can't see it and Lynx is a bit
dodgy with the audio track. Thanks!

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>>http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/0...per-child.html
>
>
> Could someone please write up a one-paragraph
> explanation of what is on the video? Vision
> impaired folks can't see it and Lynx is a bit
> dodgy with the audio track. Thanks!
>
They have these little laptops with monchrome screens. They basically
look like toys and part of that is because they are green and have two
antenna that stick up like ears. All of the computers can talk to each
other automatically without having to do any set-up. If the first one in
the mesh is connected to the internet then the next one can share the
connection. If each has a wireless range of 300ft then if you have 4 of
them in a staightline extending away from the web connection the last
one would 1200 ft away and it could still be on the web. They can also
share applicatione between them without being on the web. In the example
give one was reading an e-book and it shared that application with
another one. It too was reading the book, but could be in a different
place. Is supposed to be simple as meant for children.

Ian Singer

--


================================================== =======================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
================================================== =======================

On Jun 11, 2:27 am, John Bailo <jaba...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > A point many people seem to miss is that OLPC has this capability which is
> > one among many reasons those other 'contenders' (the one from Asustek for
> > example) are simply not suitable for the market OLPC addresses.
>
> And it's also a reason (independence from central servers) for it to be
> opposed.

It is only such a reason for people with dictatorial mindsets.

Independence from central servers is not a disadvantage, it is an
advantage. Even if you cannot connect to the internet, you still
potentially have a local network.

The reason people oppose it is because such networks can avoid
government inflicted censorship.

Dean G.

"Dean G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> On Jun 11, 2:27 am, John Bailo <jaba...@texeme.com> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > A point many people seem to miss is that OLPC has this capability which
>> > is
>> > one among many reasons those other 'contenders' (the one from Asustek
>> > for
>> > example) are simply not suitable for the market OLPC addresses.
>>
>> And it's also a reason (independence from central servers) for it to be
>> opposed.
>
> It is only such a reason for people with dictatorial mindsets.
>
> Independence from central servers is not a disadvantage, it is an
> advantage. Even if you cannot connect to the internet, you still
> potentially have a local network.
>
> The reason people oppose it is because such networks can avoid
> government inflicted censorship.

But, isn't it a little self-restricting?

Think about it....one user is attached to the internet. Then one user
attaches to him...then another adds to the cloud....then another...and
another...and so on...

At what point are so many people sucking off of the single connection that
the internet essentially stops for all connected? And, doesn't that screw
the first person who is in a place to connect to the internet and is
expecting somewhat decent speeds?

Maybe I don't understand this mesh thing well. If so, starighten me out.

jim