Merging meshes isn't something you do

I loathe reading/watching/listening to mainstream media report on technology. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know what you're watching is going to be a gruesome disaster. You know there's nothing you can do to stop it from happening. You know that you can't stop watching.
In large part, this can be avoided by keeping most of your eyeball time in the "blogosphere" for information and trends. Of course, since the people int he blogosphere are my peers, there's always a bit of peer revue that should happen. So, when I find a new trend/idea... I don't immediately buy in... but research it first. I also don't release a blog post until I've firmly decided that either the opinion is worth flying against fact or that I have significant sources to post on fact alone.
In my search for information on the wireless industry, I had one particular writer, who's name I won't mention, that I was really starting to enjoy reading. The guy seemed to really know what was going on, but had a 'easy-on-the-eyes' writing style that was a pleasure to read. Today I'm back to having to rehash all of what I read from him. True, the entire spectrum of Wireless technology can be difficult to keep up with, but certain statements can red-flag an individual as not being "with-it." Imagine somebody showing up to a social group of physicists and giving a talk about the true existence of "centrifugal force" that "throws" objects from a spinning merry-go-round. The guy would be laughed out of the room.
Today, not only does this member of the blogosphere take unnecessary pot-shots at a fellow blogger (for being "heavy with AdSense ads, and thus suspect"), but before that says:
"One potential crossover is that both the OLPC XO and Open-Mesh use open
software to achieve their meshing function... potentially, both
systems' meshing technique could be brought together and made
interoperable. Well, we can at least hope that those capable of doing
this would see the wisdom, fun, and utility of that."
Okay, let's pick this apart...

• "those capable of doing this": At least he's identifying himself as not one of "those" that can deal with the underlying protocols of mesh discovery and routing.
• "both the OLPC XO and Open-Mesh use open software to achieve their meshing function": Um, no. Yes, OLPC XO uses an open source operating system. However, not everything is open source. What isn't open source? Well, the meshing protocol for one (it's proprietary). This makes interoperability with other meshes highly unlikely. Even if the source was open, to change the discovery and routing protocols to "meet" with another is all but impossible. That isn't to say that the open-mesh routers (running on an Accton platform) couldn't be re-programmed to use the same meshing techniques as the OLPC XO IF OLPC XO released their meshing protocol... but that's a pretty big if. Likely, after that, the nerd debate would ensue over which meshing protocol was the better meshing protocol. Not to sound negative, but there isn't a shortage of opinions on what the best mesh routing protocol is to use on an ad-hoc wireless mesh network.
  
• "potentially, both systems' meshing technique could be brought together and made interoperable." Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

There is one caviat: there could be bridges between the networks, but they couldn't be made to interoperate directly without OLPC XO opening their mesh protocol.
So... no. This won't work. And... no, you can't just trust people that what they say is possible... is. The lesson? Double check what you read and believe everything you see on TV.