IBM Does Bluetooth On Linux

Frank Carlos writes: "IBM released Linux-based applications technology based on the Bluetooth specification called BlueDrekar, which is a reference implementation of and a set of interfaces for the Bluetooth protocol stack. You can get the Transport Drivers for BlueDrekar(TM) Middleware at the developerWorks Open Source Zone."

Comments

Re:Bluetooth as a Wireless Standard

[matthew_gream]

>Until there is a common format, Bluetooth will >fail. I hope someone will take the initaive to >create an open standard for content transfer.

You may be interested to know that IEEE is standardising Bluetooth wireless technology as 802.15 - perhaps they may address some of the issues you mention.

>Bluetooth as a wireless standard will fail. This >is the conclusion that I have come to after >watching the industry very carefully. The >reason? Not enough standardization.

I agree with the lack of standardisation, but I am not sure that it will cause the standard to fail. There is significant momentum behind the technology, and I suspect that will continue to drive it through - but unfortunately, the result may not be as ideal as was hoped.

Personally, there are aspects of the architecture that I think they could have done in a better way. I don't think that the architecture is conceptually abstract and rigid as it could be, and the lack of vision to include bandwidth extensibility, etc.

>So far, there has been no standardization for >content protocols over Bluetooth. The >only "standard" that could be considered close >is wrapping TCP/IP, from which you can get HTTP, >XML, etc. for passing data. However, Bluetooth >as it stands is not going to be the be-all and >end-all of information transfer, because there >is no common format.

I am not sure that there needs to be standardisation for content protocols. Bluetooth includes a Service Discovery Protocol that allows for any myriad of services to be developed and employed.

IMHO that is exactly what Bluetooth should do, just like TCP does not define any content protocols, because it is a transport layer.

>What's needed is a common implementation of a >method for applications to speak to each other >over an open protocol. No manufacturers have >been forthcoming about this. Instead, we see >fracturing of devices, unable to actually speak >to each other.

There is a common method in the Bluetooth SDP; and as far as I can see it does not preclude the use of something like Jini.

One problem I do see is that Bluetooth was designed to be something like an IrDA replacement, but now it is taken and used for other things outside of its design envelope. The question is whether the original conception of the design had enough vision to foresee these things, and will cope with them.

The key selling point of Bluetooth is economic - it is low cost and low power, and that's exactly what's needed for things like headsets and consumer electronics. Price pressure is everything. The Bluetooth chip manufacturers are at the cutting edge with RF-on-chip technology - and the winners in this race will be those that can come up with a small-size, low-power and low-cost solution.

My cynical perspective is that Bluetooth will become the technology of the wireless age, and like Microsoft and desktop computing, it will be both an enabler and a hindrance, and be somewhat controversial.