Slashdot Mirror
HP Introduces A Bluetooth Printer
man_ls writes: "I found this on C|Net, it's an HP Printer that also supports Bluetooth. You can read about it here. Not that the Bluetooth will do anything except interfere with 802.11 wireless networks, but it's an interesting feature to have." Actually, Bluetooth shouldn't interfere with 802.11 except in confusing product marketing, right? Nice to see that at least one printer will actually hit the market with a short-range radio interface instead of wire (inconvenient) or IR (poor interoperability).
Why would I want a bluetooth printer?
whats wrong with pport ?
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Now I can walk all over my room with my printer and print! Also, I can synchronize my cellular phone with the printer, whew great!
Wait a sec... What good will that do?
Another useless application of bluetooth...
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Now i can't fid out who's printing p0rn on my printer. damn it.
--- windows is not the answer. windows is the question. The answer is NO.
Don't forget that with kernel 2.4.17mb22 you too can use this printer.
Sincerely, Mike Bouma (Linux Kernel Hacker)
PS: Yep, I did it before Alan Cox
IR seems like a much better choice than Bluetooth in many applications because it is intrinsically more secure and doesn't suffer from RF interference. The latest IrDA standards are also a lot faster than Bluetooth. Visibility and propagation restrictions for IR are usually not all that serious in an office environment.
There are a few niche applications where Bluetooth may be better, but I'd like to see IrDA used much more widely. Too bad that IrDA has lost its buzz.
... it can replace my power cord.
... it's affordable.
Look a monkey!
Alot of people are wondering what the point of this, talking about carrying the printer around, etc. The point of IR and / or Bluetooth on a printer, is now anyone can walk into the office with his laptop/pda/cell/whatever, and print instantly. No need to dock it, hook up a cable, install drivers (cause they'd already be instealled), etc. This is a godsend for people who do most of their work on the road. This is the reason printers have been IR compatable for some time.
WTF? Since when is bluetooth incompatible with Macs? Is Mr Johnson just really ignorant does he have trouble saying what he means?
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
From the article, "While we haven't had a chance to test the DeskJet 995C, ..."
Ummm, this may as well be an HP press release.
Bluetooth does interfere with 802.11- they are both using the same 2.4 GHz band (as a bunch of other things too) but they do interfere- they don't completely knock each other out, but they will degrade each other's range and total throughput. I wish I had a good reference for it- my information comes from a talk I heard from a guy on the Bluetooth committee. That 2.4 GHz band is a free-for-all. Telephones, Bluetooth, 802.11, wireless cameras, and whatever the next big thing is. You only have so much bandwidth, and you have to share.
As a cable to something like a printer- yep, that's the whole idea behind bluetooth- as a way to eliminate wires, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of it. Eliminating wires is just the beginning- the real amazing stuff will come when things are truly interconnected and it's cheap- cheap really is the selling point behind bluetooth. The manufacturers I've talked to have a goal of about a $5.00 cost for the bluetooth solution. When we get there (802.11 is a more complex solution that is aimed for the higher end, and that is getting pretty cheap- the cards are way under $100, which means that the chipsets are probably under $20). Aside from the irritating marketing potential, having everthing interconnected is the way things are going- where you don't have to worry about synchronizing your Palm Pilot and your phone with your computer, they do it automatically when you're nearby.
Bluetooth has the potential to really change the way computers work with everything- we just have to see if it will really happen. It's not the only thing that we need- and it won't happen tomorrow.
No, because ethernet ports are generally built into the mainboard, so would require a costly replacement of the hardware and firmware to be able to support Bluetooth, 802.11 or whatever.
I think the point is if you have a postscript printer on your IP network, and you hook up an 802.11 access point t your IP network, then your printer magically becomes an 802.11 printer as well (unless you fire wall off the 802.11 part, which is frequently a good idea, but not as frequently done).
The upside? One 802.11 access point gets all your printers. The downside? The longer range of 802.11 lets people outside your office waste your paper. Plus IP stacks on many printers are insanely fragile, so someone could break the printer pretty simply.
Wow, here's a classic example of people who Just Don't Get It.
I'm all for Bluetooth, but isn't the idea supposed to be for shor range communications? So that my cell phone can look up a phone number in my PDA, or if it's not there then in my Laptop?
What good is a Bluetooth printer if my desktop is more than a few feet away? Wouldn't 802.11b or 802.11a make more sense for something like a printer? That way my wife can print from her computer upstairs.
Like I said, I'm all for Bluetooth - I still want that supposed Bluetooth headset so that I don't have to pull out my cell phone to answer it, but a printer just doesn't make sense to me. Bluetooth should be in all the things I carry on me, so that they can communicate with each other - the Personal Area Network. Desktop things like printers and scanners and such should have wireless with broader range, so that every device in my house/office can access them.
That's my $.02
So the obvious question is if there are other similar problems possible/probable with all these other wireless devices.
Of course, technically, it is possible, but I am wondering about the practical worries, be it from the office next door or whatever, given the coming explosion in the range of wireless devices.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Easy solution to the security problem: VPN tunnel through the firewall. Both secure and useful.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Not really a downside if you use authentication and encryption at your access point. I think you're just picking at straws here!
I can just see the local Goatsex fiends driving slowly down Corporate Ave pinging for unsecured wireless printers. Add a little banner: "this is how insecure your wireless network is!"
...
...
Or antiglobalization activists
Or plain garden-variety spammers
This is starting to get somewhat offtopic, but
I've had bad experiences trying to mix a Logitech Cordless Keyboard/Mouse (Freedom Pro? I believe was the moniker) with 802.11 Wireless LAN cards (D-Link PCI/PCMCIA cards).
I tried to mix the two when creating a 'set-top box' type computer system for TV use -- mostly to play MAME games and such on the big screen, but I added an 802.11 card and cordless key/mouse for some comfy web surfing.
At any rate, I had tons of connection problems with from the 802.11 in this machine to the 802.11 access point even though they were well within 802.11 range with very little obstruction..On a hunch I pulled out the cordless keyboard/mouse system and shelved it and the connection problems went away. I wish these devices were a bit smarter about collisions and finding some way to avoid them.
Sheesh. Someone should tell the "special kids" they aren't allowed to use the computer no more.
Actually TI and HP demonstrated this in last year's CES itself. I wonder whats new in this report. While the majority of the industry is moving over to other wireless technologies, I'd really love to know the reasons behind HP's movement here. Probably they just want to try out their old wares...
"Do something man. Right now."
Are you crazy? People could so easily sniff your vpn passwords, then you'd be screwed!
This is bluetooth version 2 though. Those were using the prerelease of bluetooth version 1. As the newest version allows for extended communication range and (admittedly weak) encryption, this is quite a large step!
No they can't. I thought it was obvious that you run encrypted VPN, so no plaintext passwords are sent on the net.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
It's called Lightning.
-- Chris Martin, System Administrator
Some Carnegie Mellon University folks conducted this experiment (PDF format). A continuously-operating Bluetooth link in close proximity to an 802.11 link caused a few percent 802.11 packet loss, and sometimes caused the 802.11 link to fallback to lower data rates. This is even with one of the 802.11 nodes right between the BT nodes, which were 6 feet apart. Sounds tolerable to me...
I don't have an ethernet printer at home, but I do use SSH tunnels there (to get my mail, and run VNC, and/or X).
The last place I worked had an open 802.11 network, but it was treated as "outside the firewall" by everything at work. They also have another open 802.11 network in another building that is inside the firewall, which is a bad idea.
Well I am picking at straws, it is my vocation, and my great skill. Oh, and I like it.
However if you are talking the 802.11 A&E, it doesn't seem to be so secure. Have you read slashdot recently? :-) Generically, yes, A&E solves all problems like that, but which A&E method? KerbV? SSH? SSL?
I think most 802.11 networks will be set up with no A&E, or with 802.11's WEP, which hasn't been all that successful. Those are the easy choices. Doing something else will be hard, nonstandard, and stand some chance of working.
(of corse easy and standard would be making the wireless network outside the normal firewall, but many places find that too inconvenient)
Umm .. I wouldn't call any data loss "tolerable". This would count as a major failing if it happened in my organization!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, I'd go for 3DES encryption with MD5 signed certificates for authenication. Probably use something like Raptor Firewall with Raptormobiles, that seems to be a good solution, it's worked in the past.
Tolerable ? Msybe you meant "Intolerable", but 1% of your message was lost ?
And the 'fallback' to a lower datarate should happen BEFORE such a high error rate occurs.
That's a huge percentage !
Anyway, that sounds like a dumb experiment to me, since the data loss would be much, much worse if the Bluetooth devices were at about 20 feet and the 802.11 were within a 100 foot range.
802.11 has a much longer range than Bluetooth, which means that the Bluetooth signal drops off sooner.
The point is, they're both for 'mobile' operation, and you cannot 'see' to avoid the nodes in the room/area where the 802.11 signal really overpowers the Bluetooth (or vice-versa, potentially).
Even so, 802.11 and Bluetooth can be designed to co-exist, but unfortunately (for Bluetooth), there are many, many 802.11 devices out there already that were not designed to coexist with Bluetooth.
For this reason, many offices are forbidding Bluetooth devies in the building - to keep them from crippling the throughput of the 802.11 nodes.
Packet loss is not the same as data loss.
What? Packet loss is data loss. (Although not necessarily vice versa)
I saw two guys going crazy trying to debug some Bluetooth device until they stopped the 802.11 traffic going on.
Neither 802.11 nor Bluetooth has a truly usable authentication scheme.
The way this ought to work is that wireless devices should have to be "introduced" before they talk. A separate "introduction interface", using short-range IR or physical contact, is needed. The idea is that if you want the printer to talk to a laptop, you point them at each other, they exchange keys, you punch a button on each saying you approve, and thereafter they can talk. Less-portable devices should be introduced through some intermediary, like a palmtop. Underneath is a crypto system, but the users never see it.
RSA Data Security once developed a security architecture along these lines, using something called the "fob" (as in key fob, a physical device on a keychain). But that was in the 1980s, and it was too early. It's time now.
A nice open-source project would be to implement this for devices that have both IRdA and a wireless connection
When I surf for pr0n, using mozilla 0.9.4, blocking all the pop-up ads they will now be printed using the bluetooth.print.popup function to my wireless printer?
So does this mean the next HP innovation will be a combination printer/shredder?
Will it print and then shred the popup adds? or will it print on shredded paper making re-assembly illegal under the DMCA/SSSCA?
(snicker, guffaw)
Moose
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I haven't had any trouble with my IR stuff. I've got an HP 2100M with IR on the front, and I can print to it from all my IR stuff: laptops, my newtons. Even all my server motherboards have connectors for IR, I just haven't been able to find modules to plug in. I'm really happy with my IR stuff. Unfortunately, I can't print from my palm pilot that way, but at least they recognize each other.
-- Nolite audere delere orbiculum rigidum meum.
In a building currently being built, installing cat5 cable was ignored, as well as power outlets in the floor.
Ok, well wireless access was being considered after explaining that it would work around the lack of network ports.
Guess what the next questions was?
Can we install wireless **power sources** as well.
BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAH
Uhhh, yeah, its called lightning!! Here hold this copper rod.
Moose
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
3Com demo'd a Bluetooth PC Card with this HP printer at N+I in Atlanta - it was pretty cool.
One of the nice things about a bluetooth printers is that you don't have to let someone onto your corporate network (wired or 802.11b) just because they need to print something out.
We've been able to collect energy from invisible souces for quite some time. Cosmic noise, solar radaition, etc. have all been exploited. The trouble is that (with the exception of the sun) the power sources are relatively weak. Even at our best, solar cells are now only 5% efficient (at max). The concept of having wireless power is certianly possible, but the trouble is that eveything organic within range would probably be fried. For example, we can transmit microwaves, and turn those back into electricity (but not very efficiently); however you couldn't have children/your brain would ba akin to a microwaved potato.
A 802.11b printer makes more sense in this application (although, personally I don't see whats wrong with ethernet for your printer...). Headsets, keyboards, etc. are good appilications for Bluetooth, but this isn't one.
Offtopic?? What idiot moderator modded this as offtopic? It is a correction to danheskett's post on VPNs, which is quite clearly incorrect! Damn you moderators!
Seriously, though: a reasonably well-designed IrDA system will work fine in diffuse daylight. IrDA may not work if the receiver looks directly at the sun, but that's not so good for electronics anyway. The IR signals can be amplified to allow for diffuse reflections. If two devices don't communicate even if there is a cover, then clearly the problem isn't sunlight, it's a hardware or software problem.
Well, stop using Ethernet then. Maybe if your "organization" is as important as you claim, you shouldn't be using free-for-all bands like 2.4 Ghz.
The problem with using bluetooth as a complete replacement for wires is power. The keyboard, mouse, and other similar devices will have to be battery powered. That will just be annoying.
Many vendors will only support it to a nominal distance. Dell, for example, only supports wireless transmissions from 15 feet or less, in the same room, on wireless products sold with their consumer lines. Go ahead, try and call them on a support issue, and tell them you can't get a transmission at 20 feet.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
It sounds as though Bluetooth is transport and protocol, eliminating the need for addressing every device that wishes to interact with the Bluetooth enabled printer. The Bluetooth PDA or whatever casts out and discovers what's around and they work out who's who. OTOH it sounds as though 802.11 is transport only, and that every device wishing to interact must be addressed and identified on the network. Is all this correct?
If my understanding is correct, it's going to be a classic tradeoff of convenience versus security.
- Sig this!
If you drop a packet, the initiator should retransmit it. You lost a packet, but all the data got to the target in the end. See?
if someone can rig a powerful enough bluetooth transmitter, wardriving with Goatse.cx. Bad enough doing it back in the early cablemodem days when networks were unprotected...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.