5 ms·

I hope so. I have issues with BT about once every time I use it.

the_only_law 6y ago
I’ve heard multiple times that apparently a lot of proprietary Bluetooth stacks are filled to the brim with bugs. I’m not sure how complex the Bluetooth spec is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. It’s also part of why I can’t stand the trend of remove the headphone jack from devices.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  I've read chunks of the bluetooth spec and while I didn't wind up spending very long actually using it, the vibe I got was that of a committee composed of architecture astronauts who pumped out pages by the truckload and applications engineers who could never agree on anything. The standard is very heavy on abstract cruft and very light on constraining decisions, which is probably why 30 years later we still have pairing issues with headphones.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Oh but the next version has fixed that, uses less energy and is going to be great, as per every Bluetooth press release every single year.
    - krastanov 6y ago
      BLE actually fixed that and it uses less energy. I have used it both on desktops and on embedded devices, in C and in scripted languages, and it has been a pleasure.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    The original design was utterly terrible. A low data rate frequency hopper with long packets. Which meant the RF performance was terrible and non state of the art. By design. I think they thought spec'ing low data rate frequency hopper meant automatically low cost, low power. They messed up the low power part by spec'ing a complicated baseband that had everything but the kitchen sink. Basically duplicated the USB spec but then added authentication and encryption on top of it. Which is even more complicated because everything runs over a unreliable frequency hopping rf channel. Frequency hopping messes with a lot of things.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  > I’m not sure how complex the Bluetooth spec is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true Pretty complex.
- userbinator 6y ago
  AFAIK the spec is a free download, I have the "Bluetooth Core 5.0" one and it's 2822 pages long. I also have the one for WiFi (802.11-2012) and that is 2793 pages, so I'd say they are of roughly equal complexity.
  - the_only_law 6y ago
    Yeah, I have tried to read that WiFi spec and I was kinda overwhelmed.
devwastaken 6y ago
I tossed bluetooth dongles aside and got an intel AX210 and it fixed connectivity issues for me. Turns out bluetooth actually needs antennas and reliable firmware.

I’ve heard multiple times that apparently a lot of proprietary Bluetooth stacks are filled to the brim with bugs. I’m not sure how complex the Bluetooth spec is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. It’s also part of why I can’t stand the trend of remove the headphone jack from devices.

jjoonathan 6y ago
I've read chunks of the bluetooth spec and while I didn't wind up spending very long actually using it, the vibe I got was that of a committee composed of architecture astronauts who pumped out pages by the truckload and applications engineers who could never agree on anything. The standard is very heavy on abstract cruft and very light on constraining decisions, which is probably why 30 years later we still have pairing issues with headphones.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  Oh but the next version has fixed that, uses less energy and is going to be great, as per every Bluetooth press release every single year.
  - krastanov 6y ago
    BLE actually fixed that and it uses less energy. I have used it both on desktops and on embedded devices, in C and in scripted languages, and it has been a pleasure.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  The original design was utterly terrible. A low data rate frequency hopper with long packets. Which meant the RF performance was terrible and non state of the art. By design. I think they thought spec'ing low data rate frequency hopper meant automatically low cost, low power. They messed up the low power part by spec'ing a complicated baseband that had everything but the kitchen sink. Basically duplicated the USB spec but then added authentication and encryption on top of it. Which is even more complicated because everything runs over a unreliable frequency hopping rf channel. Frequency hopping messes with a lot of things.
kumarvvr 6y ago
> I’m not sure how complex the Bluetooth spec is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true Pretty complex.
userbinator 6y ago
AFAIK the spec is a free download, I have the "Bluetooth Core 5.0" one and it's 2822 pages long. I also have the one for WiFi (802.11-2012) and that is 2793 pages, so I'd say they are of roughly equal complexity.
- the_only_law 6y ago
  Yeah, I have tried to read that WiFi spec and I was kinda overwhelmed.

devwastaken 6y ago

I tossed bluetooth dongles aside and got an intel AX210 and it fixed connectivity issues for me. Turns out bluetooth actually needs antennas and reliable firmware.