Re: Survey: What are you using MadWifi for, and why?

Hi madwifi-lists,
hi Michael!

Regarding your questionnaire, I got the following answers:

 1. What are you using MadWifi for?

We are using MadWifi with Atheros-based cards from Alfanetwork, Gigabyte 
and Ubiquity in the 5GHz band. We use them in Alix boards - so we act in 
embedded computers.

 2. Did you already evaluate ath5k/ath9k? If no, why not?

No, because it was reported on the mailing lists, that Accesspoint mode 
does not work yet, which we essentially need (since 2.6.31 it is 
reported at least as "implemented" - okay :-)   ). In addition, we 
already made some experience with madwifi and regard it as being 
"stable". So another problem is, that we do not trust ath5k yet. Maybe, 
if it once reaches the "stable" status - including accesspoint mode - we 
would switch. But since this has just been implemented to the kernel, we 
do not yet believe it be trustable, we still want it to be evaluated a 
little more, since we cannot afford it to crash because of a buggy 
driver on any side of the connection.

Until then, we are bound to madwifi, although to us it is a rather big 
problem, that madwifi is not developed anymore. It is very hard to still 
get support and apart from that, there are no more developments done (no 
one could even tell me, what exactly the status of 802.11h is inside 
madwifi. Right now, I am stuck with re-reading the code and trying to 
get a glimpse of how it works... this is annoying!) If I don't get to 
understand the 802.11h-stuff of madwifi (thanks to Benoit Papillaut for 
the implementation), I will have no other choice than evaluating ath5k 
regarding AP-mode and 802.11h.

So - madwifi works, but has no more support. ath5k is regarded as the 
only solution for the future but not yet mature enough to be used in our 
field of production.

Kind regards from Germany,
Dennis

Michael Renzmann schrieb:
> Hi all.
>
> As you might have noticed, there currently is a discussion [1] going on
> about the future directions of the MadWifi project, including a decision
> how to deal with MadWifi driver. It turns out that there are pretty
> contrary positions in this regard: some would like to see MadWifi being
> dumped completely as soon as possible, others would prefer to continue
> development and even implement new features.
>
> What do others think? It appears to me that we know too little about what
> MadWifi is actually used for today and why. Thus I'd like to start a quick
> survey.
>
> It would be great if you could answer some or - ideally - all of the
> following questions:
>
>  1. What are you using MadWifi for?
>
>  2. Did you already evaluate ath5k/ath9k? If no, why not?
>
>  3. In case you evaluated ath5k/ath9k but did not yet switch: what is the
> reason for your decision, and what is required before you could switch?
>
> Any input is highly welcome, thanks in advance for your time.
>
> Bye, Mike
>
> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.madwifi.project/165
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Madwifi-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/madwifi-devel
>   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july