2 Comments on "Link blog: wireless, radio, Bluetooth"

  1. It doesn’t seem a terribly well informed discussion and, sadly, focussed around the rather dull host-stack end rather than the more interesting FW end. Presumably because no-one at the FW end is allowed to talk. You should contribute! Perhaps anonymously, under some exciting pseudonym like “Mr Night”. Nice to see the evil BC getting some stick, but at least they get mentioned 🙁


    1. > It doesn’t seem a terribly well informed discussion

      It’s Hacker News. See also Webshit weekly. Admittedly, this sort of parody is pretty easy, but the cliche contains some truth (HN readers are largely Javascript devs hoping to “disrupt” something).

      > You should contribute!

      I’m not sure what I’d say. The top rated comment doesn’t seem right as a reason for it being difficult to use: layer 1 (assuming they mean the RF and the LC bits, although the latter is technically layer 2 I guess) isn’t as complicated as wifi and the whole thing isn’t as baroque as anything the 3GPP got their mits on. Yet both of those have produced stuff which “just works”, in that I can connect to my access point by clicking on a list and entering my password, and my phone makes phone calls. I suppose the whole rigid time slots thing makes interesting network topologies and wifi/LTE coex a bit of a pain (and they screwed up the ACK scheme which makes that worse), but the point is the other protocols are worse and yet somehow don’t have BT’s bad rep for usability.

      I’m going to say that the lack of a standardised UI is what makes the whole thing complicated to the user. So it’s not really my fault. Phew.

      Who on earth wasn’t using a revision control system, I wonder?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *