On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:37:18 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 22 Jul 2006 22:45:49 GMT,
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <e9u9qt0113o@news4.newsguy.com>:
|
|>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:55:06 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
|>
|>| Read Wikipedia and the wikis below. Lots of helpful links.
|>|
|>| The problem is that you're trying to do something beyond normal consumer
|>| networking, so it's inevitably going to get complicated if you're not
|>| willing to pay (or beg) an expert to do it for you.
|>|
|>| You should decide whether you want to (a) debate terminology or (b) get
|>| your network working. I'm happy to help with (b), but don't really have
|>| the time for (a).
|>
|>Here's how I think you can help, not me particularly (although had you done
|>this before AND had I done my research and found it, this would have saved
|>some confusion). Put SOMETHING on your wiki that explains that the Netgear
|>WGT624 _will_ have the limitations of an access point.
|
| It's not *my* wiki -- it's *our* wiki. I just started it and did most
| of the work on it thus far. The essence of a wiki is that *anyone* can
| contribute. Including you. ;)
|
|>Maybe you could do
|>this simply enough by explaining that the Netgear WGT624 _is_ an access
|>point. The Netgear website DOES NOT. The PDF data sheet for the WGT624
|>DOES NOT. Those failures by Netgear are certainly not your fault.
|
| There's no failure. The WGT624 is a wireless router, as Netgear clearly
| states, which is a combination of (a) a wired router and (b) a wireless
| access point.
Neither "wireless" nor "router" alone implies an access point. Combining
them does? No. Combining terms means the concepts are combined. But
there is no implicit synergy that says it must be an access point. You
could, for example, combine a router with a bridge. It would still have
wireless functionality. It would have router functionality.
Indeed, Netgear never said the WGT624 was an access point.
|>But I
|>believe your wiki could be substantially more helpful to people if it
|>explained specific models of products from specific vendors and what roles
|>in a WLAN those models could or must operate. Maybe start a specific page
|>for each wireless device model on the market. Then on that page all the
|>features ... and misfeatures ... of that model can be made available. Then
|>people can find out things they really want to know without having to sift
|>the all the sales BS.
|
| Impractical in the general case, because there are simply too many
| products on the market. Worse, for many of these products there are
| many different versions that are really different products.
The more products there are, the more reason to do so. A wiki is also just
the right kind of means to do it, since it is a great tool for public input.
|>I suppose I could start my own wiki. But you
|>already have a very good start. And while your wiki is open to public
|>update, I don't think it's my role to substantially update its structure.
|
| Again, it's not *my* wiki -- it's *our* wiki. I just started it and did
| most of the work on it thus far. The essence of a wiki is that *anyone*
| can contribute. Including you. ;)
And if someone, maybe I, puts in pages for specific products, including an
index page to those products?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net /
spamtrap-2006-07-23-1348@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
Re: Revised: Netgear WGPS606 <-> 2x Netgear WGT624 
Linear Mode
