<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Martin Langhoff <<a href="mailto:martin.langhoff@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.langhoff@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div class="im">On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Ajay Garg <<a href="mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com">ajaygargnsit@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > Just that, we do not wish to set up a mesh-network, as per say. </div>I think you are missing the background reason here. AFAIK, reasons to disable mesh network on XO-1: - Mesh can easily saturate RF, so dense usage scenarios (schools!) benefit from switching it off. - Easier out-of-the-box interop with later XO-1.x models, where the "under a tree" network uses ad-hoc 802.11g. <div class="im"> > By removing all references to the device, we could provide a "soft" solution </div>Nah, messing with Sugar code is the wrong solution. </blockquote><div> I agree. But there is no working lower-level solution :\ Regards, Ajay </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> m -- <a href="mailto:martin.langhoff@gmail.com">martin.langhoff@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:martin@laptop.org">martin@laptop.org</a> -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff" target="_blank">http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff</a> </blockquote></div>