Mike MacCana wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 11:37 +1000, O Plameras wrote:Bluetooth not GPRS, true. Bluetooth use radio to achieved connectivity.
Mike MacCana wrote:
Aye, it is indeed. /dev/rfcomm0 is your serial port, your phone is your modem.
And all for a mere $3.38 per MB. Thanks Optus!
It is provided as WAP service by telecom companies.
Er, yes. Hence 'thanks Optus' above.
Bluetooth is tremendously cost-effective and flexible as a wirless
networking solution for Domestic or specialised networking setup
compare to wifi-NIC or the traditional hardwire.
Bluetooth != GPRS (which is what I was talking about - using a phone as a *modem*, rather than something to send/receive pictures to/from). Bluetooth has a short range, as you mention, 100M at best, I know of no ISPs who use bluetooth to talk to your phone.
Bluetooth does tty dial-up like any analog modem, although within a short
range. Once connected to bluetooth server, the connection runs ppp. Once
connected to bluetooth server like what I have at home I then connect to the
internet via my internet connection at no additional cost. I can then download
as much Megabytes to my hearts content at $0/Megabyte; check my email;
download games; play mpeg; etc.
Bluetooth also achieves networking interconnectivity by emulating ethernet. Once this is done then tcp/ip connection is achieved.
If you meant GPRS, in Australia, it's not really that cost effective when compared to a wireless (802.11b, or 3G not using WAP/GPRS) ISP.
When I talk about cost-effectiveness, I meant using bluetooth in Domestic and Specialist networking environment not GPRS, so I disagree with the statement.
Bluetooth is cost-effective compared to 802.11b.
An Bluetooth adaptor can be used as client or access point server for the
cost of $45 each. My Netgear Access Point cost me a tick less than $400.
My Netgear or SMC pcmcia wireless card cost me about $180 each. A lot more wireless card do not have linux driver than have drivers and
different chips use different drivers. Bluetooth server or client use the
same set of kernel drivers and the same set of utility tools and are
either GPL of LGPL with all source codes being available. This is not
so with 802.11b. For example, SMC 2632W drivers are obtainable from
the internet but part of it is binary and part is source codes, i.e., not even
LGPL. There are other inherent differences. Bluetooth use the same
device for server or client. It is in the configuration that one specifies if
bluetooth is server or client.
Anybody intending to use 802.11b cards for networking one has to be very carefull in selecting these cards. I can go and buy any Bluetooth dongle with the confidence that it will work in Linux as client or server. I cannot just go and buy any 802.11b card and expect it will work on Linux.
I am not saying that bluetooth is a replacement for 802.11b. I am saying bluetooth
is cost effective compared to 802.11b for Domestic and Specialist environments.
Bluetooth, obviously, has many other functionalitites that cannot be provided by
802.11b cards or access point.
This is not true. Each has its specific area of utility although there are areas ofBluetooth in the successor to infrared. And that's all. Infrared that goes through walls. As you said, great for the home, but not for long range wide area wireless.
commonality.
Check: http://www.mobileinfo.com/Bluetooth/competitors.htm -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
