The Opportunity of Mobile Linux in Danger 50
Eugenia writes "I just posted an editorial on the state of Linux for cellphones. Currently, there are 6 different initiatives and alliances, all completely incompatible between them, and in my opinion this kills a great opportunity for a unified 'Linux platform' that can compete with Windows Mobile and Symbian S60. As for the existing released Linux phones, only MiZi Research has an SDK freely available to create a GUI application for it. Motorola sells thousands more handsets than MiZi does through Samsung, and yet they don't release their EZX SDK. C|Net also wrote today: 'while Linux had a lot to offer in comparison with proprietary systems, such as improved scalability and flexibility, it is lacking in other areas, industry watchers said. Ovum telecommunications analyst Tony Cripps said that Linux-based smart phones are currently inhibited by the lack of a standardized application environment for third parties to write to, unlike Symbian's offerings.'"
It is a shame... (Score:2, Insightful)
Naive, I know, but... (Score:2)
For Linux? Why? If that's all manufacturers are worried about, can't they bolt on an evironment that isn't so Open? It may be against the FOSS movement, but I can't see manufacturers being particularly cut up about that. You may now flame me for not getting it.
Re:Naive, I know, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not just for cell phones (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if only we had this unified 'Linux platform' for the desktop, then maybe we could compete with Windows XP.
Re:Not just for cell phones (Score:2)
Re:Not just for cell phones (Score:1)
we do (Score:3, Informative)
That makes the situation better than, say, on Mac OS, which has Cocoa, Carbon, some Classic, and a lot of incompatible third party toolkits. And Windows has a baroque mix of 16bit and 32bit applications, various levels of Win32, and soon
standardized environments (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
I had this idea for a totally virus-proof, malware-proof secure computing system. Basically, every single processor has a different instruction set. There's no way to run a binary compiled for anyone else's computer on yours, and no way for anyone except you to compile binaries that will run on your computer. According to which, if a binary is running on your computer then you must, at some stage, have had the
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
I'm sure RMS would wet himself at the chance to sell that machine though
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
Actually, it is close to proprietary software vendors' dream, provided one small change is made to your devised system: "yes way" for someone( and you get to choose who) "to compile binaries that will r
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
No, standardized environments are good. For example, Autoconf is a standard environment. Free Software that uses some other build method is just as much as a pain as anything else, you know (for example, using RPMs on a non-RPM distro or vice-versa).
Another area where even Free Software apps would benefit from standardization is in GUI libraries -- wouldn't it be nice if your GTK apps could be themed using the same utility as your QT apps?
A third area -- one where Free Software is actually good -- is in li
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
This exists, but it is crap and looks weird.
A third area -- one where Free Software is actually good -- is in libraries in general. Isn't it nice how most apps use the same libraries (like, say, OpenGL)? You wouldn't prefer each app to install its own libs, now would you?
"Whoops, your version of QT has libqt3.so.1! So
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
Yes, I know -- that's why I used it as an area where Free Software needs improvement.
If you use the software the way it's intended -- by compiling everything together from source -- you don't have that problem.
Mac apps don't statically link everything; I guarantee they all (except for we
Re:standardized environments (Score:1)
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
Re:standardized environments (Score:1)
Re:standardized environments (Score:2)
You just gave away your lack of understanding of sonames.
Re:standardized environments (Score:1)
I would like to have freedom to choose between open or closed source software.
If your application uses autoconf, it's pretty darn easy to port to any distro
Are you kidding? the "next, next, next, finish" approach the "arcane installers" uses takes 15 seconds to install something. for 99% of my apps, that's all I need.
Most linux zealots don't understand that the users wants to use the apps, not the OS
What a load of bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't all these manufacturers heard of GPE [handhelds.org], Opie [handhelds.org], or even Maemo [maemo.org]? Those ought to be easily adapted to run on phones instead of just PDAs.
I think the real reason they're all going proprietary (and not providing SDKs) is because the service providers don't want there to be an easy way for anybody but them to make applications for the phones.
Re:What a load of bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
couple of bucks PER MONTH for privilege of sending text messages
overage charges if you send too many text messages. Come on! TEXT MESSAGES! This is a miniscule amount of data co
Re:What a load of bullshit! (Score:2)
I don't think that's the case, I KNOW that's the case. And, better yet, it's not just that they don't want people making apps, they don't want people copying the apps from one to the next- most of the Mobile Phone vendors gig you each and every time you get a new app for a new phone. That's $2-15 each
Re:What a load of bullshit! (Score:2)
That's certainly not a big problem from my perspective! The more divided my enemies are, the better off I am.
From their perspective, of course, the problem is not that they can't come to an agreement, it's that they haven't yet succeeded in screwing over their competitors also by gaining a monopoly on their particular proprietary technology.
Re:What a load of bullshit! (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, but I think that's only part of it. I think primarily, they aren't used to thinking that way AT ALL. In their world, they'll get in trouble using someone else's technology. In their world, if they don't create something unique and protect it like it's their genitals; then a competitor will ki
I wonder why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the business of charging for a call is handled by the base station and not the handset, there are no implications for making things open that benefit the subscriber at the expense of the telephone company {though I can think of some that might benefit the telco at your expense
But it's unlikely to happen without government intervention, because keeping things closed and proprietary benefits the handset manufacturers {to a limited extent} and the telcos {to a greater extent}. The easier it is for the likes of me and thee to muck about with our phones, the harder it is for the corporations to charge us money for cheesy applications.
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
Just think of how many cell phones lock down Blue-Tooth capabilities so you can't add your own ringtone unless you buy/download them on-line. Its one of the things at least, that T-Mobile got right.
Offer applications, and upgrade contents, but don't treat your customers like convicts.
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
It's not a function of the phone, it's a function of the service provider and the firmware they load on the phone. For example, I guarantee that if you had bought that K750i through Verizon that the ability to use recorded sounds as a ringtone -- or indeed get them from any other source but VCast -- would have been disabled.
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
For example, I guarantee that if you had bought that K750i through Verizon that the ability to use recorded sounds as a ringtone -- or indeed get them from any other source but VCast -- would have been disabled.
I would have to agree, I use Verizon now, and previously I had been on Tmobile. Verizon to me seemed very much more directed at controlling what one can/can't do with their phone. For instance having to purchase a service just to be able to sync the phonebook to your computer, uhh no thanks. Than
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
Re:I wonder why not? (Score:2)
I read the headline wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
It actually may not be a bad idea for them -- their current platform of a custom J2ME implementation on ARM7 doesn't seem to have much of a future. Few developers are producing software for it due to its differences from other handsets (and its restricted distribution model). It's falling behind even less expensive handsets in the market in terms of hardware support for things like Bluetooth and EDGE.
Opening up the platform and making it a tiny Linux box could give Danger a whole new market for the device: techies who don't care much for Blackberries or Treos.
But as long as Paris Hilton and P. Diddy are happy with theirs, that may never happen.
Bad joke. Please don't read... (Score:3, Funny)
In a tragic side-note, Tony Cripps was gunned down in an apparent drive by shooting by Billy Bloods...
Damn it, I warned you it was a bad joke.
Re:Bad joke. Please don't read... (Score:2)
Data Pilot (Score:1)
anyone know about any such projects?
This is not a realy big deal... (Score:1)
Motorola Joins Eclipse Foundation With New Tools f (Score:2)
Looks like these chaps are keen on Linux suceeding and working with the Open Source community
patience (Score:2)
If Palm gets it right, Palm may well change the tide. If not, some other company will.
What is pretty clear already is that the current crop of Linux phones based on some Linux+J2ME or Linux+Qt/Embedded is not going to cut it. Why? Because none of those phones are going to offer compelling advantages for mainstream users, an