Bluetooth for Linux Released

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.

Comments

Other OS ?

[Nastard]

Its good to see Linux getting something before anyone else. I think this is the first time a commercial grade product has been released for Linux before any other OS, but one thing has me bothered.

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.

Re:Other OS ?

[Sloppy]

I think I can figure out what the other OS is.

FreeBSD, obviously.

---

Story of Bluetooth

[citmanual]

Make sure you check out the story of bluetooth. It reminds me of the smurfs. Rather humorous to find that sort of thing on a web site like that.

What the heck is a Bluetooth?

[DragonHawk]

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 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

Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth?

[kijiki]

Its a short range 2.4Ghz frequency hopping networking protocol. Applications are pretty much: Everythign irda was supposed to do but sucked at + audio distribution (IE, your cell phone turns into a landline phone when you're near your computer) + tons of neat-o new stuff (your palmpilot can dial a number on your cell phone).

There is a reasonably good article about it in the latest Dr. Dobbs journal.

Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth?

[Menthos]

Basically, Bluetooth is a short-range (less than 10 metres or so) radio communication protocol for digital devices. It is aimed towards mobile devices (laptops, cellular modems, cellphones, palms, winces etc.) so that you won't need cables to connect them with each other anymore. Since it's radio, it has some clear advantages over IR protocols (you don't need a clear view between the devices, so your cellular modem could stay in your case, for example).

Hope this explains a bit. If you want to read more, browse the Bluetooth SIG site . 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.

Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth?

[Menthos]

Well, those old URL:s weren't too useful... =)

But there's much new stuff. This Intel page explains a lot of the history behind Bluetooth.

Basically, (the Intel page doesn't say this) some engineers at Ericsson 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 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. Here's the specs.

Re:What the heck is a Bluetooth?

[mindstrm]

Yeah. Your wristwatch and PDA don't have enough juice to handle 802.11. Bluetooth is short range and more complicated.. meant for things like ptp links between printers/palmtops/radios/cellphones.
Basically, everythign IRDA was going to revolutionize but sucked at.

I like this

[Menthos]

Really cool to see this from Axis. If you don't know Axis, they make printer servers, CDROM-servers, and now also web cams. Their latest web cams run on their own hardware (the ETRAX100 processor, see their developer page linked above for the specs) and contains a fully integrated web server, and everything is powered by Linux =) (see this page)

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)

No short distance, no long distance

[mcol1]

There is no long distance networking without short distance networking. Bluetooth is a good standard for short distance communications. Look at the telcos. It's the local ex Bells and their brethren who control the phone business, because they control the local loops. With Bluetooth, you potentially have your own local loop. The long lines networks are already under heavy competition. It's easier, although very costly, to build long distance networks than short distance networks.

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:No short distance, no long distance

[mindstrm]

Can you present some facts to back that bold statement up?

Follow links before moderating.

[DragonHawk]

www.bluetooth.org is a better site.

The above www.bluetooth.org website is a redirector to a commercial company selling Bluetooth hardware to OEMs. I cannot find any information about Bluetooth on it.

www.bluetooth.net

[Raindeer]

I assume everybody makes mistakes and the site we're all looking for is http://www.bluetooth.net/

Re:Facts about Bluetooth.

[SEWilco]

HOMERF is trimmed down 802.11, Bluetooth is newer

What bluetooth is really for

[Spyky]

A lot of the posts here seem to think that bluetooth is for wireless networking. From what I understand thats not entirely the idea. The range is very very short (10m) and thats under good conditions, going through walls is going to cut that range a lot. The idea as I understand it, is too replace a lot of items that currently use infrared (because this doesn't require line of sight, goes a bit farther). That means things like cell phones communicating with PDAs, laptops communicating with printers, maybe someday video game controllers communicating with base units. I can't wait for the day that I can carry my palm in my pocket and have it automatically hotsync with my pc every time I walk close. Thats bluetooth.

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

Problems with Bluetooth

[Effugas]

Couple issues that need to be brought up--

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...

Re:Problems with Bluetooth

[RGRistroph]

The Resurrecting Duckling referred to above is here (first link on the google search):

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/duckling/duckling .html

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.

Broken encryption?

[Djinh]

While quickly scanning the Bluetooth spec, I see some potential problems:

• The designers of the cryptosystem seem to think that 64 bits is enough for general use. This does not bode well.
• The spec does not mandate a known-good random number generator. It has been shown in the past that designing one is a very difficult task that few people do right the first time. This opens the way for lame randomnumber generators in devices.
• I have not been able to find any good references to the crypto algoriythm used. This, again, is not a good sign. Remember GSM anyone?
• The spec claims Bluetooth uses a modified SAFER for authentication. Bruce Schneier has this to say about SAFER: SAFER was designed for Cylink, and Cylink is tainted by the NSA. I recommend years of intense cryptoanalysis before using SAFER in any form.

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

Re:Facts about Bluetooth.

[mindstrm]

To my understanding, bluetooth is not meant to solvethe wireless lan/wan problems that 802.11 is. Bluetooth is intended more to solve the last-yard problem. Something to universally take the place of IRDA devices as well as maybe patch cables for ethernet. It's meant so nearby devices can talk to each other easily, without the headaches of IRDA... it's not meant as a networking solution.

Re:Facts about Bluetooth.

[mindstrm]

It's not meant to replace wireless lan/802.11

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:Bluetooth PCMCIA? ..and IEEE 802.11

[mindstrm]

They are unrelated.
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

[mindstrm]

Uhh.. that's because Bluetooth has nothing to do with replacing wired networks.
It's to link portable devices together, like what IRDA tries to do today (only a lot cooler)

Reality Check!

[dublin]

Several points to clear up misconceptions:

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...