Slashdot Mirror
WiMax Landscape Taking Shape
geekee writes "A front page article in EETimes describes some of the goals, as well as some of the issues, involved in WiMax (802.16a) development. The main goal is to deliver 74Mb/s up to 50 km. One big issue is the tighter specs required when compared with WiFi. "It's a big train wreck, and much more complicated than 802.11a design, especially in terms of dynamic range, spectral range and phase noise in RF," said Colin Howlett, a senior RF engineer at VCom Inc. There are at least 4 known companies working on the RF portion and 4 known companies working on the baseband processing. These companies include Intel, Fujitsu, and Maxim. Another issue is in getting governments to agree on regulation standards for the systems, particularly in the 2.5, 3.5, and 5.8 GHz bands, Inconsistancies exist in the requirements for dynamic frequency selection and transmit power control, as well as spectrum allocation. Cost is also an important factor, since WiMax is positioning itself as an alternative to DSL and Cable, and therefore, companies must be able to offer competitve prices to gain market share."
at that point I throw away my ethernet cables.
Here is another good article on Wimax.
Any improvement which will lead to an increase in bandwidth for little cost can only be a good thing. I for one welcome this new development and hope that this organisation gets sufficient funding to continue these advances.
FloodMT: crapflood Movab
I could see using this for a backbone to get the signal out to fringe areas, but for the last-mile to the consumer, 802.11b(g) is more than sufficient. When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house? If the internet ever gets _that_ bloated that you need that fat of a pipe, it's time to turn off the computers and go outside.
lets just hope the gear can handle that kind of bandwidth, my netgear access point says 54mbit/s, but i only get 10mbit/s sustained bandwidth. quite frankly i think they're cheating their customers putting a bandwidth label on the box when it doesnt even reach one third of it. The D-Link AP we got later wasn't much better either, only 10mbit again. I have doubts if we will see that kind of bandwidth.
WiMax is not a replacement for WiFi, it's a backbone protocol for long-haul RF connections. It'll take place on licensed bandwidth which will be illegal to try to jam, as opposed to WiFi where there's nothing stoping your neighbor from using the same frequencies...
It'd be pretty cool to have automatic control/readouts of things like wind/precipitation/dish aerials etc. from the weather monitors, most of which are in the middle of nowhere. With this sort of range, you can do a lot more :-)
:-)))
If the RSPB are trying to make sure no-one nicks the eggs, they just get a Tini or similar linked up to a webcam and one of these networks, and you have yourself a remote monitoring station for those rare eggs without some poor sod having to sit there for 10 weeks...
Not to mention the more normal uses, of course
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
now only if they would extend that 50km to 150km so i can get wireless internet at school out in BFE ohio. i wont hold my breath though. ill just have to stick with my crappy 300k/50k roadrunner.
The FCC is supposed to license on behalf of the people... not to get big money from corporations to limit the public's use. The public should be given all the bandwidth they need... not what is left over after the corporate landgrab (like the useless 2.4ghz spectrum... microwave ovens). The FCC is overstepping its duty and should be dealt with accordingly.
I, for one, can't wait to strap in and feel the Gs!
I want to share 74Mb/s with everyone within a 50km radius?
Sounds like a pretty crappy, easily oversold service, with crappy ping times. We already have that and it's called satellite.
Wires are the future. Wireless is for sock thumpers.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I have been using WiMax for a few months but they don't have all the bugs wor=20 ]} } }}&..}=3Dr}'}"}[NO CARRIER]
companies include Intel, Fujitsu, and Maxim
And here I thought it was just a Playboy wanna-be with out the wit or boobs...
"Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
i was thinking the same thing. whats the point of having internet going at 70+mbps. it gets to be a moot point when you're downloading a few 50k jpeg files and some text.
No, 802.11 anything is not sufficient. Unless using specialized antennas at both ends, 802.11 would not even be adequate from the utility pole to the house in many circumstances. Anyone who has any experience with wireless ethernet knows that the range is never as good as it's hyped up to be, especially through walls and such.
I am feeling fat and sassy
First of all, This will probably not substantially increase bandwidth to target users. Though it might have a higher theoretical maximum, they simply cannot afford to offer more bandwidth than your average cable ISP already provides.
Second of all, I don't think this will necessarily have a lower cost than existing connections. Cable and telephone infrastructure already exists necessarily because of other technologies; that means that cable and dsl providers really don't have much overhead on those technologies (beyond the bandwidth and the routers, which they would need anyway).
Finally, I don't think we have to "hope" that Intel gets sufficient funding; I mean, feel free to donate, but they have enough funding to develop wimax or any other technology for the next millenium.
Beyond all that, this could be a very nice innovation for one reason; Convenience.
and 2006 to have the key mobility and roaming capabilities? If it's enough of a deal-breaker that large and small businesses are keeping their proprietary plans in play, then perhaps it's good reason to do the extra work and get (at least some of) it in now.
One reason the broadband in the USA is behind other countries is the population density. With WiMax (stupid name - what will the next version be called WiMaxXTREAM?) one tower with a fancy antenna can cover a lot more ground.
The gentlemen at Ars have a nice comment on how the industry is feeling about deployment of WiMAX as a replacement for existing broadband.
good Idea I just patented that name and trademarked it, so i can get rich with out working.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The real reason this will be useful is because it would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper/easier to cover more area without the need to run a wired service to each subscriber's house. In America there are already wires in most houses, but think of rural China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc. where there might be no infrastructure. Not only that, but going wireless means the service can be useful in ways wired services aren't.
When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house?
This is wireless though, so all users within a particular tranceivers coverage area would share that bandwidth. 802.11g gets close, but to ge the kind of range 802.16 is supposed to provide you have to hack together directional antennas, and there is no standard for that.
Wouldn't one person with a cordless 2.4GHz mess all of this up?
Think about:
BLINKING!
My eyes now feel rested.
SWALLOWING SALIVA!
Thirst quenching!
HOW YOUR FEET FEEL IN YOUR SOCKS!
Yes. My feet are quite comfortable. Especially now that I am not wearing boots.
Thanks! I was having a bad day. Your suggestions have improved my outlook!
*This is not backbone technology*
802.11b is not a viable access solution
802.11b does not have enough reach or capacity to service a city. Limited bandwitdh, 11 MB/sec makes deployment in highly populated areas an un-reality. Each node can realisticly support 10 or 11 households. To support densly populated areas, hundreds of nodes would be required. In addition there is no real "roaming" available with 802.11b. The G simply ups your limited bandwidth to something higher, at the cost of range. That's not really a viable solution. Finally the limited range makes deployment in rural and suburban areas an impossibility.
The way of the future
A *SINGLE* 802.16 node would be capable of hosting about 1100 64K voice over IP channels. The same bandwitdh could be used to provide appx. 140 "broadband wireless" subscribers with 512K channels. That's pretty impressive. Stack 10 Nodes and you have 1440 broadband subscribers. Not only that, 802.16 was designed as a solution for Metropolitan Area Networks. 802.16 is simply an evolution of the 802.11 technology, scaled for carrier grade deployment, and the servicing of a large number of end users.
The real last mile solution
In rural areas, and even some city suburbs the reality of "broadband" isn't coming to fruition. The primary reason is cost. It costs too much to deploy cable systems and becuause of the distance from a central office, DSL is not feasible. Satellite isn't really all that great as on of it's "Features" is the very high latency.
A new age
802.16 will begin a new wireless age. In the coming years we will find that there is no Data and Voice usage with our cellphones, as the notion of a "Data Channel" and "Voice Channel" will go away, all calls will be just data. Instead of an 802.11b card, you will have an 802.x chip built into your laptop or handheld device, you will gain access to the same network that your phone uses and the protocol to do so will be the same. We will all have access, uniquitous access to data from any place that currently has cellphone coverage. 802.16, and it's future generations will be "The way" that data networks are accessed wirelessly.
Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then. Seriously, why do people even assert that more bandwidth is somehow unnecessary. There are all kinds of scenarios that exist today that can't be handled because bandwidth is such a limiting factor.
Bigger, faster, better is done in the name of progress. No one says you can't take a break from fast-paced technology by going for a hike in the woods. Hell, you can give it up entirely and live there for all I care. Just don't go around asserting that things are fine the way they are and nothing should change, it only makes you look ignorant.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
If "WiMax is positioning itself as an alternative to DSL and Cable", why not start with like... 2Mb/s?
But it would be useful because there could be a lot of locations that would suddenly have access to broadband that were previously without...
No, 802.11 anything is not sufficient.
/. over the last year or two.
My personal experience differs from your statement.
Unless using specialized antennas at both ends, 802.11 would not even be adequate from the utility pole to the house in many circumstances.
The "specialized antennas" are 50 or 60 bucks each, readily available online from many sources. I've been using standard, off-the-shelf Linksys WAP11's and a couple of 24dBi directional antennas, on an 802.11b link, for the last year. I'm 1.1 miles from my source, and have full T1 speeds up and down over this link. I haven't had any outages, from wind, snow, heat, or cold (and it was -7 farenheit this morning).
802.11b is just fine, today, for last-mile solutions, without violating any FCC regulations or custom-fabricating anything. It has even been mentioned a time or 50 on
Even a pair of pringles cans could probably get you a mile.
Anyone who has any experience with wireless ethernet knows that the range is never as good as it's hyped up to be, especially through walls and such.
And yet, with a minimum of equipment, range and walls aren't relevant, for an installation which is no more complicated than installing a satellite dish.
Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then.
Do the math. What's your bitrate from a DVD? IP may not be the appropriate solution for, er, _broadcast_. We've got these things called "satellite TV" and "cable TV" which fill that need just fine _at this time_.
Just don't go around asserting that things are fine the way they are and nothing should change, it only makes you look ignorant.
And likewise, don't go around asserting that people have made a statement that they have not; it makes you look like your argument is weak and you need to make up the opponent's points for them. Nowhere in my post did I say (or even imply) that change is bad or this technology shouldn't happen; please don't put words into my mouth.
1 WHOLE mile? That isn't far enough for smaller towns. Now if it was 10+ miles it would work.
You're not thinking big enough. I think the key word here is convergence. At really high speeds, 50 mbps for example, everything comes through the internet. Voice over ip is the first example as it requires relatively little bandwidth. Television and on demand movies are real bandwidth hogs, and will not be delivered over the internet in any meaningful fashion until bandwidth is increased greatly. When super high speed bandwidth is available, however, your telephone, radio, and tv are all going to come from the same place: the internet.
This is a very laudable goal, because democratizing the transmission medium (there will likely be lots of competition) will drive down prices on the bandwidth as well as the content. Things like customized tv packages, and niche tv offerings will take off when the internet is the transmission medium.
Point to point, 1 mile is a piece of cake. I have 28dB of signal:noise ratio, typcally. I haven't done the math to find out how that link would be at 2,5,or 10 miles, but you're welcome to. It's a "Mag grid antenna" from Andrew, which I bought from fab-corp.com, and the cartesian plots are available online.
What part of "last-mile solution" wasn't clear about my response? Backbones get you to the area you want to distribute the signal from, distribution gets you out from there. It's two different sets of requirements, as your misunderstanding comment even acknowledges.
and corporations are the ones that provide that bandwidth
yeah, well I just registered the domain name, so there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OMG I just got victimized by this!!! What do I do? How do I stop thinking about my breathing and my shoes?
sincerly,
Think about your breathing troll victim
There is an effort to setup one of these networks in my county this year (2004). They expect to need two antennas to cover the entire county. Intel and IBM met with the public and municipal officials last week. So far, no company has offered to be the ISP, but BellSouth, Cox, and Alltel are obvious choices. Initially, service will be offered to businesses, later to residential customers. If the project goes through, Intel says this will be the first site in the United States to be covered.
Official Home Page (only looks right in IE)
Stories from the local paper
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
In quite a few places in the US, the 'last mile' is 2-4 miles...
SURGEON GENERAL SUPPORTS NEW WIRE TECHNOLOGY
NEW YORK - Over the past century, the health of humans has been
increasingly endagered by the radiation in the evironment. Ever since
we have had networks, we have had radiation, and in ever
increasing amounts.
Since the high amount of radiation in our environment has been
identified as the primary cause of death in modern society (radiation
is the cause of all cancers and mutations which are responsible for
41% of all deaths today), more and more voices are taking up the
call to do something to reduce the amount of radiation.
One novel suggestion has been to replace the radio transmitters
connecting devices with wires-- a technology which was once
prevalent according to technology historians. "100 years ago not
all information was radiated, the way it is today" explains tech
historian Mono Rudy of the New York Museum of Technology,
"In fact large quantities of inormation was transmitted using wire
technology resulting in much lower amounts of radiation to the
consumer. One wire, or something called a fibre-optic cable,
could reduce radiation exposure by many body-burdens, especially
where large distances are concerned."
The Surgeon General has lent his support to investigating this
new/old technology, declaring that "where the health of this
nation's citizens is concerned, we must make every effort to
adapt technology to our needs."
--30--
I think if we do the math, my 28dB of S:N should be more than enough to extend that mile to 4. I'll find out in spring, it's too farking cold to play signal-strength games this time of year in my part of the world. It seems like 15dB of S:N is enough for a reliable link at least up to 2Mb/s (which is faster than the T1 feed we're working with, so it's fast enough). Not sure how fast signal falls off with this particular antenna, but easy enough to find out.
Why is it that 802.16 has vastly improved bandwidth and range compared to 802.11b/g?
Does it require special antennas and bulkier equipment? I imagine the power of the signal must be vastly greater... My 802.11b wireless card transmits at about 30 mW and with a very rudimentary antenna.
So what's different in 802.16?
My bicyles
These hi-power radio nets put lots of people on the same segment, competing for bandwidth. The supply side vendors talk about bandwidth like 74Mbps as if it were a lot, when it gets spread around a 50Km radius sphere. In NYC, that's 20M people, for under 4bps - a byte every two seconds. Meanwhile, lower power is more distributed for redundancy and segmented bandwidth management. Where are the mobile device makers, whose marketers depend on the people with the demand, to tell the marketdroids at TI and Sprint that they're building a 2-lane bridge through which to drive the entire metropolitan rush hour?
--
make install -not war
...you insensitive clod!
And yes, I've just fed the troll. Ah well, I wasn't accumulating karma anyway...
Anybody knows if FHM and Stuff have plans to compete?
Saludos
I just bought a new house in a "growth area" just north of Dallas (i.e.- Keep your cats inside or the coyotes will eat them. Really.)...it is outside the DSL range (RT node coming soon, hold your breath) and the cable co's refuse to run lines down my street until more people move in (continue holding breath). My parents think it's hilarious that I didn't immediately disqualify the house.
My only non-satellite alternative turned out to be a wireless broadband service. Their techs mounted a square antenna on my roof, and ran a coax line from the attic down inside the wall to my office. No idea what protocol or band they're using, but the service is 1024up/1024down for $69/mth. Slightly higher than my apartment's DSL line costs, but at least it beats dialup and I don't have to drive in to work when I get paged at 3am.
Gaming latency versus DSL not yet tested. Hold your breath.
Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
As a WISP owner, I can say for sure that having much higher bandwidth APs is extremely helpful. With 802.11, you are operating at the *lowest* common speed, so if one of your clients can only manage 1Mbps, that's all you get to share among everyone.
What remains to be seen is if 802.16 will tackle the pitfalls of 802.11. I suspect it won't, and if it doesn't then we're only marginally better off. Frankly, you can get close to 50km links on 802.11 equipment under ideal conditions, so that's not a big benefit.
The key will be if 802.16 can operate as non-line-of-sight (NLOS) and if it can tackle the hidden-node problem. NLOS is key to utilizing the existing cell infrastructure for wide deployment for clients (eg. if you want to be connected everywhere). LOS is only good for backbone links.
The hidden-node problem is a larger issue. 802.11 is CSMA/CA - collision *avoidance*. Because 802.11 is half duplex, it can't detect collisions, so ir tries to avoid them by listening for other local users and simply not transmitting when they are. That works when you can hear the other clients, but in a point-to-multipoint setup (like remote antennas at different hours), you quickly trample on other people when two people transmit at the same time. CSMA/CA doesn't scale, and the only two ways around it are either to create a wireless "token ring" like KarlNet does, or to run full-duplex.
If they solve both issues, I'm game. Otherwise it's just another protocol. The cell companies figured all this out, so why can't we?
Its 70megabits to everyone on the same access point, not just to one subscriber. Its sort of like how a cable modem headend can cope with a hundred megabytes but the subscriber can only get 1.5meg.
70mb with 20:1 oversubscription will be good for about 500 customers in about 5 years in the US or other well connected areas.
802.11 + 802.16 + 802.20 = Pervasive net (last word can be substituted by nightmare)
how wide would the signal be at the 1 and 4 mile mark?
the -3dB angle is 5.6 degrees wide. Haven't done the math yet.
That device just uses magnetic induction to transfer power, just like those powered tooth brushes.
There was a story here a little while back about true wireless power, using a highly focused microwave beam. Find it here
802.16 is simply an evolution of the 802.11 technology, scaled for carrier grade deployment, and the servicing of a large number of end users.
Even scaled at the numbers you say, this seems like it would require a heck of a lot of cells to service a large population. In a city of a million people your talking on the order of 1000 cells (each with 10 "nodes" as you say, in them). Each of the cells being strategically placed and configured so as to not kill its neighbors.
This all sounds highly improbable in the near future - mabye 5 to 10 years out. Consider that Cingular, T-Mobile, ATT, etc have yet to complete a good network of a GSM base stations, and they have been at it for years. Now granted I've heard a GSM station is something like $100k a pop, but with 10 "nodes" a piece, plus tower, cabling to the tower, antennas, testing, etc these things can't be much cheaper. (this also implies to me the future skyline will be covered with monopole towers)
The other bit, and I'm not certain of the official status of 802.16 bands, is that cellular bands are regulated (meaning you can get in trouble if you "modify" your cell phone to boost the range). If this stuff is unlicensed, then anybody could rig their own setup right in the middle of everybody else.
Going up to 30 miles with up to 74Mb/s is not exactly the same this as going 30 miles at 74Mb/s. Even if it achieves this goal (doubtful in my book without a massive power increase), it is almost irrelevant to any purposeful application. Think about it: 8VSB, used to broadcast digital television over-the-air in the US, and a very robust scheme at that, goes about 30 miles or so but at vastly lower data rates (about 19Mb/s payload). Now, let's talk WiMax: 3X data rate jump? What's the client transmitter look like? 30-40dB gain client-side antennas? Site aquisition costs? If rural areas can't afford local TV transmitters (it's what gave rise to cable TV systems in the first place) what on earth makes everyone think that WiMax transmitters will dot the surface of the earth? And I rather doubt this is laptop stuff.
Backhaul? Telecom's are awash with capacity and cable networks too. Anyone that tries to undercut them will have to a have a mighty economical technology.
Thousands of homes? 70Mb/s? Who would hook up thousands of users to a 100TX network? And then talk about the potential for video? And throughput is 1/2 or 1/3. Ridiculous.
As for Wi-Fi range, get a clue, please. Given enough power, antenna gain and sensitivity at both sides, 802.11 could reach 'to infinity and beyond.' Except, of course, for the interframe spacing requirements of 802.11. Any link that is longer than about a mile and a half (2km) cannot ACK within specification (processing latency impacts this generalization) simply for the propagation delay of the radio transmission. Any links that are longer than that are not truly compliant with the spec. (They generally depend on an ambiguity in the spec that in practice permits delays of up to 5X that with DCS-limited MACs, or 3X that with PCS MACs). After that, you are simply testing how closely the particular MAC adheres to the ACK and DIFS/SIFS specifications. To go fartherdistances, simply modify the MAC specification and add the appropriate antenna gain (and height). But beware, throughput will suffer (simply because you now have to wait longer before giving up on a faded channel).
As frequency increases, the more difficult it is to get a terrestrial link working, for a number of reasons. Path length also complicates things, exponentially. This is why TV stations always endeavor to attain, by any means possible, to have the lowest available frequency assignments. So does everyone else who remotely knows anything about radio.
Moreover, having IT people set up wireless networking is like having a person set up and run mission-critical servers because he has twenty years experience as a ham radio operator. It's nonsense. Now, beyond any reasonable doubt, 802.11 has been dumbed way down and people still get it wrong (even basic things like polarity and near-field obstructions). WiMax will absolutley fail if it becomes an "enterprise networking" technology.
It shouldn't be "WiMax", but rather, "Why, Max?" WiMax: the latest VC pump-and-dump deal.
Thank you for your very insightful comments on this. While I agree with what you're saying and appreciate that you know a lot about this, I must also say that regardless of what you can do with 802.11, not everyone is going to be pushing it to its limits. I am certain that you realize that, because it has to be obvious that most people don't know how to install a directional antenna, mainly because most people don't know what that is. I do not know all the variables involved in signal quality, but I do know that with something like TCP/IP over radio the signal has to be pretty damn good for it to be at all usable. Most importantly, regardless of how good your signal is and how well you planned everything out, 802.11 latency is still too high for many applications. It's good enough for most average users in many cases, but anyone who actually notices latency goes insane even working 5 feet from a base station.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Locustworld has made so much progress with 802.11b They have technology that can let you build or buy APs that act as a regular 802.11b AP, Authentication gateway, Multiple Router/Repeater, bluetooth internet access, bluetooth camera server, you can even hook webcams up to this shizzle and run a webserver at the same time. Nodes can use IDE cdrom, flash card, or IDE/SCSCII HD to run the os/distor/meshsoftware... Security is up to 2048 bit and 512bit for internode communication..WEP..MAC ADDRESS AUTHENTICATION...Login groups and user names.... These guys have made the "defacto standard" for 802.11b which OWNS CISCO, MSOFT, everything else out (DON'T SUE ME MOFOS HEHA)... You can control all mesh nodes via web site GUI or even SSH... using a senao 200mw prism card w/ lmr 400 (low loss cable) & 12-15dbi antenna you can cover 1000m-2000m easily. The best i can say is in general it would cover 3-5 blocks per node. Nodes cost $350-600 each depending on the setup. I built my own mesh nodes for about $100 each and can repeat up to 350kb/s bandwidth with latency of 3-8ms over 3 hops... there is also multiple rerouting and even multiple backbone and internet gatways with load-balancing I believe. I tell you Jon Anderson is one smart ass mofo. I however am drunk. *burp* CMON guys blow this post up and let the world know who should get the bigups for Wireless... Hell you can even run VOIP hardware and software using a Creative VOIP Blaster and regular phone. You can run VOIP software over the Mesh by using p2p VOIP software called Skype. BIGUPS to all who use Locustworld Mesh 802.11b defacto standard. Oh yeah.. while i'm off-topic... Spammers should be sent to IRAQ. Someone edit this shit. Good night.
How will ISP:s protect themselves against connection sharing? Even now, me and 3 or 4 neighbours could theoretically share the same 10mbit connection (each of us paying every 4rd or 5th month, instead of $40 each, per month). The 802.11 gets kinda crappy through concrete external walls though. But these new standards should provide a suspicious drop in the number of paid internet connections in any area, no?
here's a fun fact: radio propagates between 10 and 25% faster than signals over wire, and about 35% faster than signals over optical fiber (yes, that's right, fiber is s-s-s-l-o-w-w-w). so clearly the latency you are talking about has nothing to do with radio. latency issues lie elsewhere in the protocol implementation. adding that ridiculous "meshing" layer -- which sounds all sexy-techy but is supremely silly -- to augment 802.11 links makes matters, not better, but geometrically worse. but, seriously, thanks for your nicely worded reply.
and, hey, hang on a minute, if this was so insightful why wasn't it modded way up?!? =)
Yea, you should have been modded up considerably.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Obligatory "Bill Gates didn't say that" reply.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
I would be interested in it myself, but I have a friend who is looking for the same, and she is planning on moving to near BFE (somewhere on the Apache Junction/Mesa border) - are there such options for her?
Also, is there a website or something listing the major metropolitan wireless freenets? Seattle Wireless shows some, but not all. Is there any such activity going on in Phoenix?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Why-Fi.net: Everything WhyFi, Wi-Fi, and WiFi
No, I am the originator of the Ninnle Project, and, I assure you, Ninnle Linux is not on any spoke, nor the hub or rim or tire or any other part of a wheel. It is, however, most definitely on the bleeding edge of Linux worldwide. After all, Linus himself endorses the Ninnle kernal!