2 ms·
You're correct; sorry. I dunno why I misread "write in any language" with "write in another language". I'm still skeptical about rewriting - the bluetooth spe
by lelanthran 3y ago
You're correct; sorry.
I dunno why I misread "write in any language" with "write in another language".
I'm still skeptical about rewriting - the bluetooth spec is notoriously buggy itself, and many "bugs" and glitches in BT are due to how poorly the spec is written.
- TotempaaltJ 3y agoA rewrite might simply make it more resilient through changes in the base architecture. However, I know nothing about Linux's bluetooth stack and I assume that it's probably taking into account a lot of those glitches already.
- sakex 3y agoWell, english is not my first language. What I meant probably got lost in translation :)
- bilekas 3y agoI'm not too sure I agree that the spec itself is buggy, certainly the implementations vary wildly from Sony almost doing their own thing to Chinese off the shelf copy pasting whatever makes a noise. That said I have worked extensively with Bluetooth within Ericsson and while there is a learning curve, I never found the spec to be lacking. Latest example : https://www.bluetooth.org/DocMan/handlers/DownloadDoc.ashx?doc_id=556599 https://www.bluetooth.org/DocMan/handlers/DownloadDoc.ashx?d...
- tcmart14 3y agoYour last sentence is exactly what I was thinking. The problem with BT isn't necessarily on the kernel's bluetooth driver. The spec is buggy and also a lot of makers of bluetooth devices don't implement the spec properly. But the spec itself isn't spectacular to begin with.