Slashdot Mirror
Linux Running Bluetooth Access Points
quick_dry_3 writes: "A few days ago I saw Red-M give the first demo of their Bluetooth access point, basically its an x86 Linux box with bluetooth, looks pretty cool too - the extenders look like silver soap holders, they only have to be given power if they're inside main units range. Range was claimed to be 100m from each unit, they demoed it with a PalmV + Bluetooth PC card. Pricey at just under US$3000 though ...
They reckon an 802.11 card flattened a Palm in 2.5 minutes, but Bluetooth gave only a slight dent in normal life."
The Bluetooth Specification is a de facto standard containing the information required to ensure that diverse devices supporting the Bluetooth wireless technology can communicate with each other worldwide.
The Core part specifies components such as the radio, baseband, link manager, service discovery protocol, transport layer, and interoperability with different communication protocols. The Profiles part specifies the protocols and procedures required for different types of Bluetooth applications.
Download these specifications from: here
Grab some white papers from: here
Cheers!
That's odd, I thought both IEEE 1394 and USB were open. Of course I've been having a hell of a time finding some good info on going about implementing both hardware and software of the former. But then I didn't want to spend close to 100 on a spec book from ieee, and I'm not an EE so I find many of the discussions I've found so far opaque. -Daniel
IEEE 1394 is a standard, but I think the word open is a bit misleading. There are quite a number of patents held in relationship to FireWire (Apple's name for the technology). These patents have been placed in a holding company by the name of <a href="http://www.1394la.com/">1394 LA's Patent Portfolio License organization</a>, by a number of companies who hold them (yes Apple is a major member of this patent pool). Any company that is going to put FireWire devices bus buys the right to use the technology from this holding comany for $.25 a device, regardles of number ports(actually use the patents behind the technology).
I belive Apple's only requirement for the use of FireWire is that it have a Driver avalible for MacOS, and that that driver and device follow the specifications (have a valid ID, vendor, etc...), and be registered (simple process).
There was a bru-ha-ha when Apple proposed a higher, per port, fee, but that never came to pass, and the change was never reported on Slashdot (*ahem*).
On a related note, this standard is no more open than USB. There are very few makers of the USB controller silicon (*cough* *Intel* *cough*), and the maker of that standard makes it's mony by controlling the patents behind the implimentation of the standard. Sure you are free to make your own implimentation, but it is going to be damm difficult, and expensive, to do so without infringing on Intel patents... the 1394 consortium is just a bit more open/honest about it.
This encapsulates two common misconceptions about Bluetooth. 1) Bluetooth is not a LAN. It is fow wire replacement. The primary profiles (headset, synchronization, serial device) support that assertion. An investigation of the piconet/scatternet architecture reveals just how inefficient Bluetooth would be at trying to route data through a network. In fact the spec reads more like the plan was to obstruct network functionality for the benefit of wire replacement functionality. Point to point punting of Audio and packet data fits easily and efficiently into Bluetooth. Routing does not. 2) You can't just stick a fat PA on the front and operate at 100s of meters. Part of the purpose is to allow many devices to interoperate. That is why the protocols are defined so much further up the stach than say 802.11. As a part of that, the 768kbps shared within a piconet may get pretty slow shared amongst a piconet. It would get stupidly slow shared between all the devices you could fit in 100s of meters (E.G.at a trade show). In addition, the high power devices sharing space with low power devices would lead to serious link budget imbalance in the RF. Rather like a pair of quiet guys trying to have a conversation at the front row of a moterhead concert. As far as the protocols go, they are not too open (the latest specs are available to the SIG signees , but don't worry, they're a boring read). However the IEEE are rewriting them as 802.15 and you'll find them to be better written. My advice, if you want to do Bluetooth protocol or application development is to concentrate on the upper layers (Above HCI), since the lower layers will get commoditized and componentized in due course and there is hardware involved, it won't be free anyway.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Imagine walking into an airport and instead of looking up at the TV screens you look down at your Palm organiser which shows you where your plane is boarding and that it's 5 minutes late. It knows the flight number because you told it and when you arrived at the airport you entered their Microlan and your Palm interroageted their systems.
It gets even cooler. Imagine all the places a Bluetooth'ed device could save you time. Pretty much anywhere you stand in line and give basic information. The rent-a-car counter, any university office, Radio Shack (why do you need to know my phone number to sell me batteries?). You could have all of your relevant information entered or double-checked, so that all the person behind the counter has to do is hand you your keys/batteries/whatever.
You could even use it at McDonald's to speed up the drive through...
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Bluetooth is for PANs, not LANs. It's for devices with low memory and slow displays. Rule of thumb: Bluetooth is good for devices that use AAA batteries or less (base stations excepted, of course).
--
FYI - I was interested on how secure my cable network was (they advertise it as fast, friendly, and secure). I did a quick scan and found 73 of about 150 computers with open SMB. After checking these, 2 had C: shared and 1 had quicken and quickbook files openly avable for download. Don't be surprized - these results are average for cable networks.
Please, Bluethooth is very free, but the delays are really annoying considering the large number of devices that are ready for massproduction. There are atleast 2 Companies, here in Kista/Sweden, which can launch a wide array of products when Bluetooth ships. One only wish Ericsson could get there act together and release there cool techs on time.
(sure, some try linux and decide that they don't like it, but that's the point: they're not trapped. Nor have they invested huge sums of money into the attempt (time, yes, but no more than any other solution))
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Hopefully, due to the distributed itch-scratching of OSS, someone will figger out a way to fix a black-out in software.. Cause, as it is now, every time the power goes out, my neighbors can hear me screaming and yelling at the damn TV, and know that "The &^%$ed PLAYBOY channel went off in the middle of a great f&^%$fest cause the *(&^&^%ing power went out! Fsck!" And I don't want them to even know that I have cable...
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Wait a minute. Are they actually using these cards as intended or are they just whacking a Palm Pilot with the network adapters?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
802.11(whatever) was designed as a replacement for the ethernet wires that connect two PCs.
Bluetooth was designed to replace the parallel, serial, IrDA and other short range low power links between devices.
Note devices. One use for Bluetooth that the mobile phone makers Ericsson are touting is a cordless Bluetooh headset for your mobile phone, removing the transmitter from your brain and allowing easier movement etc. Another is Palm to phone connectivity, no more lining your Palm V's IrDA port up with that of your Nokia 7110 phone
One of the great ideas - although wether it would ever take off or not is another matter is micro lans which allow broadcast environmental information to be displayed on compatible devices. Imagine walking into an airport and instead of looking up at the TV screens you look down at your Palm organiser which shows you where your plane is boarding and that it's 5 minutes late. It knows the flight number because you told it and when you arrived at the airport you entered their Microlan and your Palm interroageted their systems.
All this would be possible with 802.11 but the hardware necessary and the power drain of a Medium ot long range protocol would make it bulky or impractacle(sp?).
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
I've been looking with avarice at Bluetooth stuff for a while, but can't see any kit that comes even close to the $5 (USD) per module price they originally aimed at.)
l e_handsets/presentation/sld008.htm) . I reckon it'll be more like 5-10 million, consisting wholly or mainly of Ericsson phones.
:o(
Ericsson don't quote a price for their module (the one IBM used), but StoneStreetOne (http://stonestreetone.com/bluetooth/) sell something closer to a bit of kit you could actually use, and its a THOUSAND DOLLARS. Heck at least they give a price!
According to at least one article (http://inf2.pira.co.uk/top040.htm#bt) the price of the Ericsson SDK+2 boards is £9000 (Uk Pounds). CSR apparently quote $8/unit for quantities >1m, but their SDK+2 is $8000 too (http://www.cambridgesiliconradio.com/develop.htm
With prices still this high can the forecasts of 50-100 million shipped products by mid 2001 be anything but pie in the sky? (http://www.the-arc-group.com/reports/future_mobi
It looks like Bluetooth development will be out of the question for anyone but corporates for at least another year...
USB and Firewire solve different
problems. Much like serial
and parrallel, they are not in competition.
If you need high speed DV access, use firewire.
If you need low speed(relatively) access to
printers, mice, keyboards, scanners or removable media, use usb.
I don't see any point where the two over lap. So
in that case saying USB is "kicking the crap" out
of firewire is like saying "serial is kicking the
crap out of parrallel."
And btw, as others have pointed out neither
is free speech or free beer.
---
RobK
Myddrin
Neither USB nor FireWire are free. However, neither are expensive either. There are thousands of products which use USB just as there are thousands of products which use FireWire. The real point is that the topic under discussion is Bluetooth (running on Linux) wireless access. What would make sense is to compare Bluetooth to 802.11 also known as wireless Ethernet. Since 802.11 is currently in use and Bluetooth does not exist as a shipping product yet, any annoucements concerning Bluetooth can still be considered vaporous. The only interesting point about the article posted is that one line: "They reckon an 802.11 card [used up the batteries of] a Palm in 2.5 minutes, but Bluetooth gave only a slight dent in normal life." It seems that Bluetooth (when it ships) may have the advantage of not using as much juice (battery life) as wireless Ethernet. Still, wireless Ethernet (IEEE 802.11) is a proven product already shipping and in use (I'm posting this comment using an Apple Airport card & base staion to cable modem setup - runs like a champ). Bluetooth is not a free and open standard which is why it has taken so long for it to appear (it was suppose to be out a long time ago).
Is Bluetooth a free and open standard or is it closed or licensed?
I'm wondering if we're looking at a free-like-USB or a for-pay-like-Firewire situation here. Considering Firewire's technical merits but tiny market share, the above consideration seems to be a pretty good indicator of its relevance.
I'm not about to broadcast my business over the airwaves, even if it does have Linux "support".
Burn Hollywood Burn
With Linux having a Bluetooth server, linux again makes inroads into the lucrative server market. With "mobile" and "wireless" becoming the new big bad buzzwords it's nice to see a Linux solution. Competitors and specifically MS should be worried if this takes off. That would mean that even CE devices don't have to be tied to an NT/2000/ME backend. Hopefully this means that large groups of mobile users will be tied to a Linux back end.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
For more details, see http://www.live.com/wireless