Well, windows (which I very rarely boot now) on the laptop thinks bluetooth is there also, so chances are pretty good. But BT stuff seems pretty expensive, no?
On 18/11/05, Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have seen the kernel identify seemingly non-existent hardware on other > occasions. I think that sometimes manufacturers put enough of a certain > device on a motherboard to make the kernel think it is there, but not > enough to actually make it work. > > For example on one machine I have the kernel seemingly identifies > firewire on the MB, but it sure ain't there. > > I guess the only real way to tell is to find a bluetooth device and see > if you can interact with it. > > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:03:25 +1300 > Carl Cerecke wrote: > > > Ahh. Where should I check? It's got WiFi, but that aerial is hidden > > inside the screen. > > > > On 18/11/05, Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:17, Carl Cerecke wrote: > > > > I don't need bluetooth, so when I bought a laptop a few months ago, it > > > > didn't bother me that bluetooth was not in its feature set. At least, > > > > it was not in the feature set in the online specs, nor in the manual, > > > > nor on the sticker on the actual laptop (Acer TM4002 WLMi). > > > > > > > > However, I get messages from dmesg that bluetooth is initialised etc. > > > > and lsmod lists a bluetooth module loaded, which, I'm pretty sure, > > > > means I've got bluetooth. > > > > > > > > Bonus! > > > Check that your lappie has an aerial for the bluetooth fitted before > > > celebrating. > > > > > > -- > > > CS > > > > > -- > Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
