Re: ppp support naming

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 08:56 +0100, Will Stephenson wrote:
> On Monday 03 March 2008 19:38:23 Tambet Ingo wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Vitja Makarov <vitja makarov gmail com> 
> wrote:
> > >  I see it in the tree but I don't see it works, correct me if i'm wrong.
> >
> > It works for GSM and CDMA.
> 
> As far as I know, GSM and CDMA are instances of certain classes of cellular 
> networks, but GSM and CDMA themselves are not used globally.  
> 
> If I 'm right in this, it would make sense to internally name this support 
> something generic, like 2GCellular and 3GCellular and then the GUI can sort 
> out whether it refers to it as "CDMA" in EN_us or "3G" in EN_gb or "UMTS" in 
> de.  The flipside is users doing a "CDMA wtf?" when they try to use their 
> cellular card.

Just a quick point; _nothing_ should ever use or expose the 2G/3G/4G
names anywhere to the user.  Those classifications are pretty loose and
essentially meaningless.  Are we going to expose EDGE cards as "2.5G"
instead of 2G?  Are we going to expose CDMA2000 1x as "2.5G"?  No.  But
they aren't 2G or 3G either.  This classification just breaks down.

They are all "Mobile Broadband".  I purposely didn't use "cellular"
anywhere because even though that's technically what it is, that term is
only used in the US.  I'm not going to use "mobile phone" anywhere
either, because everyone in the use uses "cellphone" or "cell".

Where possible, we should display model and manufacturer strings in the
UI because people usually know they have a Nokia or an LG or a Samsung
phone.  They don't care if they have a Nokia CDMA phone or a Nokia GSM
phone.  It's a phone.

Dan