• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Very Confused..

I thought Android was the ultimate open source OS project? I find out now that after 2 years plus they still have not made it possible to connect to an Ad-Hoc wifi for the internet????

Isn't that like, basic networking 101?
 
before I respond... can you be more specific? I really want to know.... before i post a snide response.

ps... welcome to the forum
 
Well, I have 3 Android devices, ready to buy 30 of them for the company,m which by the way where I work all our wifi's are Ad-Hoc for security reasons.. I wanted to purchase a bunch of Archos 70 Internet tabs, then found out I couldnt use it with my cell phone's tethering app which shows as an ad-hoc not infrastructure.. then I took my 3 devices to work and viola, none of the networks show, only the free public wifi outside...
I hope that was specific enough !

and thanks!
 
i see.. i miss-understood at first... but...

I think this is odd...I dont have a tablet to confirm.

but others here have used the Galaxy Tab to tether to ad-hoc networks from their phones. so.. I think they can.

here is my limited knowledge guess at your issue.

1. it might be the device: Archos 70.
2. it might be a security issue setting at work. I have heard others needing to work with security settings to make it work.

find a forum for those devices... and look there for a solution. good luck
 
Yes, everyone I spoke to had to root their tab, and replace a hacked version of wpa_supplicant in the root\bin folder on the device.
I hate messing wit hthings like that and I didn't want to have to do that with 30 devices..
I am only asking why does it not do it natively?
 
Not a carrier issue, the tablets are non-phone carrier tablets.. they are wifi only and designed that way. They can see all SSID's from wifi access points but NONE of th Ad-Hoc wifi SSIDs..
 
Basic internet 101? Seriously? Who actually uses ad-hoc wifi though? Almost everyone I know uses normal secured wifi. The only time I have ever used ad-hoc wifi was back when I held COD4 lan parties in dorms, but we don't do that anymore since Windows 7 came out and we started to use connectify instead.
 
Well, kill me for wanting to work within my limitations.. our company is using all ad hoc wifi setups with PCs and internet sharing for their own security reasons.. Honestly it should not be an issue, it takes two bits of code to support it and its ridiculous that android, archos or anyone would limit their connectivity ability with a product called an "internet tablet". Furthermore Android is open source.. or is it truly? If it were wouldn't this be a non issue?
 
well.. as I understand it.

open source means it is free to use and change and distribute for free.
You can use it.. change it... and then give it away again.

so.. you can take android.. put it in your brand new toaster oven that you built. Reprogram android to not have phone and internet capabilities. Sell the toaster oven.. put the code for your version of android out to all to see and use. is open source.

it does not mean you have to make android work with all tech.. in all different ways possible.
 
So it boils down to... Archos and many others have "chosen" to modify it and distribute a version that limits the types of wifi connectivity, in a wifi-based tablet.
Seems quite logical to me!
 
I've read that it does and does not support ad-hoc networks, depending on the device.

I won't say it's at all logical, but there it is.

FWIW - it doesn't look like anyone was trying to flame you over your network config choice (we're down on flaming, unlike other forums). Maybe, more like constructive criticism for ways to skin this cat from another direction.

Sometimes a requirement is soft and is open to re-thinking - sometimes, it's just not and that's ok.

Ad-hoc networks still have their place, see - Linux Online - Introduction

I think what you're looking for from the open source aspect of Android is the same as you'd find in Linux - if something's not there, by the time you google it, a cadre of worldwide enthusiasts has added it almost since breakfast.

With that situation tho, the builds are easier because in general we're dealing with one aspect of an easy-to-get-to Linux layer and all desktop Linux always have immediate access to root or root functions via su or sudo.

Android devices, with few exceptions, come locked down so there's no superuser access at all - vendors love those lockdowns. Rooting is the process to open such access.

The reason devices don't do ad-hoc natively is more a case of demand and response than anything else. As you can see, it's a hot topic - it does come up from time to time hereabouts, but surprisingly, not often.

I'm not saying demand is too low to be paid attention to - I am saying that Android is newer to tablets and has been scrambling to get to demands from the phone community, who rarely need ad-hoc networking as a hard requirement.

Not the answers that make your life easier, but I hope this helps and clarifies, if only a little.

PS - A number of things are cut back under the hood because makers are concerned about memory space in a real-time device without an external disk drive to spool the OS from.

PPS - See also:

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/android-ad-hoc-wireless-network-support/

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=82
 
I think EarlyMon covered this more than I could have dreamt to. If I may, here is my opinion and a watered down version:

In short, what you want, is probably within the minority. For this reason it isn't found native on the devices you bought. It can be added, and that is the beauty of things. It seems to me your main complaint (OP) is that you would have to manually do this on all of your devices rather than it coming out of the box this way. While that does suck, I personally wouldn't go blaming Android for it.
 
Furthermore Android is open source.. or is it truly? If it were wouldn't this be a non issue?
No. Open source isn't a panacea. :rolleyes:

With enough contributors it increases the likelihood of something like this being a non issue but it's not a guarantee. If you need a specific feature then perform your due diligence before making the purchase. That's "Shopping 101". :D

If you bought your tablet only based on thinking that Android was "the ultimate open source OS project" then you didn't do enough research beforehand. Don't blame Android for this. Android doesn't arbitrarily support people's random expectations any more than any other option out there on the market.

In short, what you want, is probably within the minority.
Bingo. There are countless people that wonder why their specific need isn't met when it's something that a small minority of users would demand. Development resources are finite even with open source projects. It doesn't matter if a feature is "networking 101", "201", "301", whatever...
 
Well, this is why I have not bought a tablet yet.. I have 3 things that would make it even palatable:
Capacitive screen
Tether via ad hoc
and Flash support. These lately seem to be basic requirements but there is only like 2 out of 3 at best
 
Tablets are still immature. Most of the tablets now are still very much bleeding edge.

Combine that with your very unique and niche way of networking, it makes sense you'd have issues like this.

Ultimately it will be up to you, and you alone, to find a solution.

I want a tablet, to work with my infrastructure mode wifi, and even I'm waiting for a gen 1.5 or gen 2 tablet to come out before I grab one.
 
Well, kill me for wanting to work within my limitations.. our company is using all ad hoc wifi setups with PCs and internet sharing for their own security reasons.. Honestly it should not be an issue, it takes two bits of code to support it and its ridiculous that android, archos or anyone would limit their connectivity ability with a product called an "internet tablet". Furthermore Android is open source.. or is it truly? If it were wouldn't this be a non issue?
I'm curious you say you are using ad hoc wifi for security reasons.

Ad hoc wifi actually is limited in security, and is far worse for security than a centrally managed and administered network using infrastructure mode wifi.

Some limitations of ad hoc is listed here: Ad Hoc Mode - Limitations of WiFi Ad Hoc Mode Networking

I dare say security is not the reason your company is using ad hoc. I'm wondering what the real reason is for using such a non-standard way for networking.
 
Because of the sensitive nature of that question, relating to IT / security at a particular workplace - and because it's such a focused question not requiring public scruntiny - I'd like to respectfully request that such discussion might be best reserved for PM between you two.

If some good comes of it for public consumption, agree together to post that back here.

Cheers, thanks a lot.
 
Because of the sensitive nature of that question, relating to IT / security at a particular workplace - and because it's such a focused question not requiring public scruntiny - I'd like to respectfully request that such discussion might be best reserved for PM between you two.

If some good comes of it for public consumption, agree together to post that back here.

Cheers, thanks a lot.
EarlyMon, I appreciate your input. I'm just wondering what harm it can do to discuss ad hoc networking vs infrastructure networking as it relates to security in general would do. It might enlighten the rest of us as to the advantages of ad hoc networking that we may not be aware of.

I would never ask anyone to identify where they work or their specific company policies.

But it is somewhat tangent to this discussion so I will keep it to a PM or maybe ask the OP to start another thread in the lounge to discuss in general the topic.

Thanks again.
 
Thanks for working with me on this - better to find out in private what's what in an atmosphere of trust, than to misread someone who's constrained from discussing such things openly.

In addition to company names, exposure of practices that might be unique or foreign to us in and of itself could be compromising - who's to know in advance?

IOW - in my book, best to err on side of caution, then proceed.

Private Messaging - it's not just for breakfast! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom