Bluetooth for Linux Released 100
Bjorn Wesen writes, "A GPL'ed Bluetooth driver for Linux has been released by Axis Communications, supporting the current Bluetooth LAN-profile (PPP over Bluetooth). The download and mailing lists are at their developer site. This will become useful especially for embedded/mobile Linux devices - and to push Linux into the new technology before The Other OS. " Bluetooth has been getting a /huge/ amount of attention from the technical press, as well as the mainstream press. It looks to be one of the most promising standards for short-length wireless communication devices and drivers for Linux is a good thing to get this early in the game.
Other OS ? (Score:2)
and to push Linux into the new technology before The Other OS
I think I can figure out what the other OS is. My question is this: If the boys in Redmond decide they don't like playing second fiddle, what could they do to kill this standard ? Would it be possible for them to kill this standard (like what they tried to do to Jav), and try ti implement something else in it's place ? It seems a bit rediculous to do such a thing just because they werent first. But it wouldn't be the first time.
Facts about Bluetooth. (Score:1)
bluetooth for a couple of weeks so I (the
engineering guy) decided to do some digging.
Some facts:
1) www.bluetooth.org is a better site. You
can actually download the 1000 page PDF
specs if you want to. It looks pretty
complicated.
2) FWIW, the range is "up to 10 meters". Up to
30 feet, at the best. So it can replace all
those 10 foot cables, but not the 50 foot
ones.
In any case, the driver is good news. Now mabye
I can get the marketing guys to spring for some
of those $4000 evaluation boards!
-- ac
Story of Bluetooth (Score:2)
What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:2)
I guess I've been under a rock or something, because I've never even heard of it before. I can figure out that it is some kind of wireless datacomm spec, but I'm a little curious about the details. The website [bluetooth.com] seems to requires Flash, or license agreements, or both, to get anything more then marketing fluff. Would any of the fine Slashdot readership want to edjamacate me as to why I should care about it? :-)
advTHANKSance
I like this (Score:4)
They've released all their patches (it's a custom 2.0.36 kernel, see their developer page) and they're thinking of switching all their devices from a proprietary, custom in-house os, to Linux (well, maybe not the printer servers, because they have to be very cheap and cannot have megs of RAM) but all their other devices. So if you want to support an upstart company using Linux, buy their stuff =)
They work close together with Ericsson, so I'm not surprised about Axis beeing one of the first with Bluetooth drivers...
(Note: I'm not affiliated with Axis)
Come on, drivers come first (Score:1)
No short distance, no long distance (Score:2)
Ricochet had the opportunity to conquer the market in the past couple of years, but since they wanted to own the networks, instead of allowing local companies to provide wireless relaying, they lost. Now it's time for Bluetooth and the entrepreneurs. Bluetooth allows hardware manufactureres to get in on the action, while allowing entrepreneurs to write software and utilize the hardware. Little like IBM making the PC an "open standard."
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:5)
There is a reasonably good article about it in the latest Dr. Dobbs journal.
Re:Other OS ? (Score:1)
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
I wonder if this is because I am using a linux browser. Now that would be ironic...
Re:Facts about Bluetooth. (Score:1)
I do like Bluetooth (Score:1)
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:2)
Hope this explains a bit. If you want to read more, browse the Bluetooth SIG site [bluetooth.com] . They used to have a non-flash site before, but info about Bluetooth should be all over the net.
I wrote an essay a year ago about Bluetooth, with basically just meterail from the net, so maybe I could find some links for you.
Not much to see (Score:1)
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
*I* sure didn't know what Bluetooth was, and I appreciate any information.
Also, Dr. Dobbs journal is very cool, it sounds like this is some pretty new stuff.
Don't punish people for being INFORMATIVE.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Follow links before moderating. (Score:4)
www.bluetooth.org is a better site.
The above www.bluetooth.org [bluetooth.org] website is a redirector to a commercial company selling Bluetooth hardware to OEMs. I cannot find any information about Bluetooth on it.
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
Re:No short distance, no long distance (Score:1)
Re:Forget short-range (Score:1)
Besides, technologies like Bluetooth, in the long run, only help to improve telco service. As more and more people move to a connectivity model more like the electric companies (i.e. always on, everything in the home plugs into it), the market expands greatly, bringing competition, lower prices, and better service.
And remember that the telco that the public sees and the one that the Internet sees are quite different. (You never saw Candace Bergen hawking OC-3's, did you?) The customer service complaints that one hears about with the various telco companies do not carry over to their backbone divisions.
But hey, if you fix the telcos, I won't complain
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:3)
But there's much new stuff. This Intel page [intel.com] explains a lot of the history behind Bluetooth.
Basically, (the Intel page doesn't say this) some engineers at Ericsson [ericsson.com] thought about designing a new protocol for communication between their (Ericsson's) devices in 1994, and started developing it. The project wasn't initially called Bluetooth, but "MC link" (MC = Multi-Communicator). But somewhere during the development, they started to realize that the chips needed for this would be much cheaper if it was a widely adopted standard, so they started talking with their arch rival Nokia [nokia.com] about sharing the technology and making it a common standard. They formed a Special Interest Group (SIG) in 1998, together with some other well-known companies (amongst others IBM, Intel, Motorola, 3Com, Casio, Cirrus Logic, TDK, Compaq, Dell, Xircom, Lucent, Toshiba, Psion, Qualcomm and Axis).
Last year they released the specification for version 1.0 of the standard. And experimental Bluetooth devices have been built using the standard and shown on various expos last year, and real devices are under development now. I think we'll see many of these devices released this year. That's the brief history of Bluetooth.
Here is also Ericsson's Bluetooth site [ericsson.se]. Here's the specs [bluetooth.com].
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
Blåtand was a real kickas king and he did lots of dirty deeds including having his own nephew killed so that Blåtand could get a hold of norway.
The people who came up with the name were probably fans of the book The Longships written by Frans G Bengtsson. The Longships is a great book an I suggest you all read it.
Offtopic? Where else should we post /. stuff? (Score:1)
www.bluetooth.net (Score:3)
Bluetooth PCMCIA? ..and IEEE 802.11 (Score:1)
Text version. (Score:1)
Re:No short distance, no long distance (Score:1)
Re:Ok this is great but.. (Score:1)
For example: A coworker of mine showed me a flyer for a digital VCR a little while back. One of the features of this model was that it would download the TV listings periodically to aid timer recording. To accomplish this, they had a modem built into the VCR and a special 800 number set up to dial into -- a very expensive proposition. With Bluetooth, they could instead insert a very cheap interface card and tell the VCR to look at xml.tvguide.com. In this case, the technology is hobbled by the network interface.
Socket Pentium II/IIIs allow lots of computing power to be crammed into a small space. StrongARM embedded units are prevalent, as will be Crusoe boxes. This market already has cheap, small, efficient horsepower -- they just need a cost-effective way to network it.
Re:No short distance, no long distance (Score:1)
This should to be a good thing! (Score:1)
I like the concept about bluetooth: To put it simple it makes everything communicate with anything (as long as it includes the bluetooth chip and is close enough). As far as I know the basic chip communicates about 10m (30feet for you non SI people) as so many else have said already. Combined with IPv6 I suppose this can give you a network in your home with a specific IP for your fridge (if anyone would want that).
I'm not sure about how much attention this has had in the rest of the world but here in sweden (where Ericsson, who came up with this, is from) there has been lots of talking about this lately espescially among developers of technical stuff.
There has probably been even more about WAP (that also comes from Ericsson and is (_according to me_) more or less useless (I do NOT claim to be a WAP expert) from what I know since it seems to be a http like protocol optimized for bandwidth (WAP = Wireless Application Protocol) which seems to be obsoleted by fast wireless networks for cellulars (100kbit+).
WAP is a fuzzword.
Bluetooth will be big.
If you ask me
If you don't know where they got the name bluetooth from, it's a nickname for an old swedish king (something like tenth century, I think) translated to english. I think one of his front teeth were pretty bad so it looked blue or something. But on the other hand who had good teeth at that time???
Anyway.. anything written above might be wrong since I don't claim to be an expert in either Bluetooth or WAP and the fact that I wrote this 4:30AM and is pretty DRUNK... ok?
:)
Re:Facts about Bluetooth. (Score:2)
What bluetooth is really for (Score:4)
Also the other benfit is that it uses a communication system similar to what cellphones use, ie, no crazy modifications of currently manufactured cell phones to make them "blue tooth" compatible, and be able to sync with your palm or whichever.
Spyky
Re:Other OS ? (Score:2)
FreeBSD, obviously.
---
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
IEEE 802.11 -- Wireless LAN Working Group [ieee.org]
IEEE 802.16 -- Broadband Wireless Access Working Group [ieee.org]
I don't see Bluetooth going far (Score:1)
In an office environment, having wireless devices which do not require wiring may be of great benefit, but the cost of installing the system would have to be quite low. Bluetooth does not eliminate wiring costs (the units 10m apart from one another must still be wired and powered). It only reduces the costs. Unless the money saved by reducing the wiring capacity is greater than the cost of the system, Bluetooth will not succeed.
Re:Follow links before moderating. (Score:1)
--
BluetoothCentral.com [bluetoothcentral.com]
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Re:Bluetooth PCMCIA? ..and IEEE 802.11 (Score:1)
Special Interest == We Want A Cut Of The Money
Re:Offtopic? Where else should we post /. stuff? (Score:1)
A bit of a Windows Pub, but the forum allow livelier html tags. I still don't understand why there aren't people start slashdotted.org yet, host bitter submitters' rejected articles and all.
I like
CY
vvvvvvv../|__/|
...I../O,O....|
...I./
..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//|
...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.|
Fact: beaming is linea recta (Score:1)
I always have to lay my cables along my walls. Then there are also walls with doors in 'm, so I can't put 3 ethernet cables there. One at most. Linea recta though, there is no distance larger than 7.75 meters (25.4 feet). My cables easily reach about 15 meters (about 50 feet).
Re:What bluetooth is really for too (Score:1)
Boxes plugged in the poweroutlet. LCD's used as portable (text)terminals (nice for bedtime reading or cooking [in the kitchen]). Calculator which can put the answer directly in my text (no more typing there).
The only problem is, that power is harder to beam
I think that information becomes much more portable now!
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:1)
"Inside the Bluetooth Wireless Comm Spec"
James Y. Wilson & Jason A. Kronz
Most likely, its not up on ddj.com yet.
Problems with Bluetooth (Score:3)
1) Compatibility with existing 2.4ghz networks(i.e. 802.11): Apparently, Bluetooth nukes Wireless LANs(source: MicroTimes, about 3 months ago). So, Rob and Jeff are sitting around at a convention, when suddenly their Zoom Air wireless link dies. Rob looks up. "Who's the moron with a bluetooth device?!?"
2) The Resurrecting Duckling. Great paper; look around online and check it out. Talks about security issues with wireless networking. Among other things, you're now *infinitely* more susceptible to somebody "nearby"(think airport) hacking your wireless device--how are ya gonna find 'em, even if you're alerted? 10m, up to 100m with extenders...you're talking about looking for a miniscule wireless extender into a well hidden wired network. Good luck...and lets not forget that with wireless devices, draining the battery is an astonishingly effective DoS attack.
3) Trustable functionality. 10m isn't enough for cordless phones, and I don't think it'll be enough for cordless computing. Has there been any research into the human factors involved with a wireless device that can't leave the room? If you can't trust something to work, you don't use it.
4) Broken encryption. There's no way in hell that Bluetooth has serious encryption built into it, but you can be assured that developers will design their own protocols to assume that the hardware encryption layer will take care of all secrecy concerns. At least with 802.11, you *know* when you're shining out your password publically!
It's sad. I want something like Bluetooth...but the fact that it may kill existing wireless nets--thus, a rogue visitor could kill the LAN!--could possibly make it a tragic non-starter.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
P.S. That being said, I desperately want to get my hands on some Bluetooth devices...
WAP is not only about size (Score:1)
Fast wireless networks are cool, but they don't enlarge your phone's display. No matter, how fast your connection is, reading even the stripped down HTML version of slashdot on an phone will always suck. Enter WML, specifically designed for small screens.
If only Nokia, phone.com, symbian and the others would implement the standards properly... You hate incompatibilities between Internet Explorer and Netscape? You will love them, after designing pages for WAP-phones.
mouse and keyboard would be nice (Score:1)
Sure logitechs wireless stuff might be nice, but it would be even nicer if you could use a standard bluetooth keyboard with your new shiny laptop with builtin bluetooth.
Oh btw, someone sugested bluetooth might jam wireless ethernet, I think if anything it would be the otherway around since bluetooth is really low powered.
Re:I don't see Bluetooth going far (Score:1)
Broken encryption? (Score:4)
These things do not fill me with confidence.
Disclaimer: I am not a cryptographer. Someone with more clue than me is more than welcome to show me the errors of my ways
bluetooth is to IEEE802.11 what USB is to ethernet (Score:1)
MMmmmmm firewire, usb, bluetooth, ethernet and maybe a digital connector for the flat panel screen (no encryption please). Please lets dump all the other connectors, we dont need them anymore, use usb2whatever convertors if you have old equipment you need to attach.
Re:WAP is not only about size (Score:1)
One of the problems with WAP is that it's a propriatary protocol (not like HTTP that is open).
Re:Facts about Bluetooth. (Score:2)
Re:Facts about Bluetooth. (Score:2)
Think of bluetooth as somethign to replace IRDA. That would be oversimplifying, but you get the idea. We don't need every device to behave like it's on ethernet.. we just need devices to be ableto speak to each other when they are in proximity. ie: palmtop to printer (wihtout perhaps having to point it at the printer).
Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth? (Score:2)
Basically, everythign IRDA was going to revolutionize but sucked at.
Re:No short distance, no long distance (Score:2)
Re:Bluetooth PCMCIA? ..and IEEE 802.11 (Score:2)
802.11 is the wireless extension for ethernet (802.* is iEEE ethernet)
No, in 802.11, you don't need an access point. The access point is usually just a bridge, so you can hook into your lan (you could do this with a linux box, a wavelan card, and an ethernet card).
Though, some access poitns support multiple cards, and just do the job well.
Bluetooth is to replace IRDA, and is not meant to replace wireless networking at all.
Re:I don't see Bluetooth going far (Score:2)
It's to link portable devices together, like what IRDA tries to do today (only a lot cooler)
Re:Other OS ? (Score:1)
Or perhaps OS/2? Solaris?
Oh, duh, how could I have been so stupid? It must be HURD.
---
Re:Problems with Bluetooth (Score:2)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/duckling/ducklin
It didn't seem like a "great paper" to me. It had all the ideas that an afternoon a brainstorming with some reasonably intelligent folk should produce. And when they go off on that biological metaphor of the hardware being the body and software the soul etc -- and then they start making analogies about a single body having a succession of souls because you reprogrammed it -- that's just hippie talk. It reminds me of why I must stop myself from ever going to graduate school: when I am in a very overworked and sleep-deprived state and people start distracting my precious few neurons with meaningless strings of attention-grabbing words I want to kill them, and thus loose what little productivity I still had.
But even if these guys are just a couple of flaky pot-smoking vegetarian hippie coffee house denizens, they do have some interesting references at the bottom. I'll be checking these out on my next trip to Barker library.
Re:Problems with Bluetooth (Score:1)
"To operate worldwide, the required frequency band must be available globally. Further, it must be license-free and open to any radio system. The only frequency band that satisfies these requirements is at 2.45 GHz - the Industrial-Scientific-Medical (ISM) band"
( 2.400 - 2.483.5 MHz in the US and Europe, 2.471 - 2.497 in Japan.)
" Since the ISM band is open to anyone, radio systems operating in this band must cope with several unpredictable sources of interference, such as baby monitors, garage door openers, cordless phones and microwave ovens (the strongest source of interference)."
(J Haartsen, "Bluetooth - The universal radio interface for ad hoc, wireless connectivity, Ericsson Reviw, pp 110-117, No. 3 1998.)
Bluetooth left out in the rain (Score:1)
(i.e. the range drops from 10m+ to zero in the rain)
Does this affect 802.11 devices too? I was hoping that I could point a yagi at a friends house to play Quake 3 Arena, whatever the weather %-)
Reality Check! (Score:2)
1. Bluetooth is not meant to be a wireless LAN replacement (not without a gazillion "access points", anyway.) It's intended to be a cordless "desktop area network", and RF bubble that encircles Bluetooth devices allowing them to form ad hoc connections wiht one another for both data and isochronous (e.g., voice) connections. One node you connect to may optionally act as a gateway (access point) to the "real" network, if it's connected and wants to offer that service. As a transitory, ad hoc, solution, 10m is just about the most range you'd want - any more would create problems, and personally, I think they made the bubble too big. Bluetooth isn't meant for seamless raoming wireless connections, but to facilitate connections to and between things like telephone sets (wired or wireless), PDAs, desktop computers, etc.
2. 2.4 GHz doesn't belong to either the Bluetooth or the 802.11 guys. In the US, 2.4 is one of the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) bands (others are at 900 MHz and 5.7 GHz.) These are for unlicensed use providing that the FCC's restrictions are met. These restrictions include accepting any interference without recourse - if you want recourse, you go for licensed spectrum! 2.4 GHz was chosen because with minor adjustments, it's available for unlicensed use in pretty much every country that matters. (And it's the only reasonably low frequency for which this is true...)
BTW - there are lots of other perfectly legal 2.4 GHz devices which can kill your wireless LAN, so don't single out Bluetooth unfairly...
FreeBSD - no doubt about it (Score:1)
The Other OS == FreeBSB
no doubt about it. anyone who has been following unixy things at all knows that is what Linux "longhairs" call it.
I can guarantee thats what Hemos meant when he posted
#end rant
-----------------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -