Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Ubuntu Linux Eyes Gadget Apps 63

An anonymous reader writes "Three developers have launched a project to turn Ubuntu into an embedded Linux distribution, according to a story on The resulting "EmbeddedUbuntu" OS aims to simplify the creation of embedded software for gadgets such as mobile phones, PDAs, and web tablets, and provide their owners with easier access to sophisticated open source desktop applications, such as multimedia streaming software. What do you think: will they call the mobile version Mobuntu?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Linux Eyes Gadget Apps

Comments Filter:
  • Official (Score:4, Informative)

    by andrewbillits ( 882798 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @03:18AM (#14790980)

    It appears to be an official Ubuntu project: []

  • Why not something more stable? I don't use it because everyone I hear from who has installed it has found a number of bugs in any stable version. If I were going to embed something and go with a Linux distro, I'd at least go for Debian Stable.
    • They could have gone with Gentoo... although the wait for it to compile could possibly be longer than the expected lifetime of the device.

      The only reason why I can see them using Ubuntu is the fact that you can have it do a very minimum install. The "server" install of ubuntu doesn't install anything unless you tell it to. In theory, you can do a whole install, and have a machine lacking such normal apps like make or sshd. Compare this to Fedora which is at the bare minimum a 5 CD distro due to how they
      • WTF?

        Do you have any idea what portage is? I'll give you a big hint. Fedora doesn't have it. Neither does Ubuntu.
        • I used portage to refer to all of those damn packages in .rpm form that are on all of those damn install CDs.
      • The only reason why I can see them using Ubuntu is the fact that you can have it do a very minimum install.

        When I installed most of my systems with Debian Sarge, I used the Net Install disc. I forgot the actual size of the .iso, but I have it on a mini-CD, which means it's no more than 60MB. It takes less than 20 minutes to install, and I can specify to install just a barebones system, which means it does not have ssh, rsync, or a number of other basic utils that I normally use. It's faster to install th
    • Why? It's simple to get a base install with little cruft with only two steps: []
  • I only hope it means you could have Geyes on your Palm. Geyes is the only reason why I use Linux, well among others.
  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @03:58AM (#14791072) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I've been asleep too long and missed the news... but haven't they had embedded Linux for a decade now? What makes this one newsworthy?
    • You just have no reading comprehension skills.
      • You may be right. So please explain to me slowly why this is news.
        • The news isn't "embedded linux!". The news is "Ubuntu is doing embedded linux!". Some people are interested in Ubuntu. Some people are interested in linux gadgets. Some people, like me, are interested in both, and interested in finding out whether Ubuntu can bring anything interesting to the table.

          Maybe it's not huge, but it's a hell of a lot more newsworthy than bullshit like sore thumbs and useless uses of brainscans.
  • Why stop with "Mobuntu?"

    I want to create a really screwed up version of Ubuntu so I can call it "FUBARuntu".

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Is it racist to say that a brown desktop looks like shit? Ubuntu is OK but why on EARTH would they make that the default color?
    • Not racist, but (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Flying pig ( 925874 )
      You're clearly a victim of cultural conditioning. Most human beings who don't live in cities see a mixture of browns and greens whenever they look outside, and don't have a problem with it. We tend to go for the same colors inside houses, too. Brown wood panelling for walls has up-market associations, but the lobbies of expensive hotels presumably don't remind the visitors of shit. There is no a priori reason why computer screens should have blue backgrounds.
      • I tend to change my desktop background in Ubuntu to a shade of blue, as it reminds me of open sky... green works as well, because it make me think of living things. What I don't understand is why people are interested in various shades of black and white; why depress yourself even more?
      • Because blue is relaxing, Windows etc. have all aimed to show the aimless waltz of clouds sky and running water, rolling hills and the occasional pretty dance of some kind of plasma.

        When you're greeted with your desktop for the first time they've determined that "clouds and trees and bunnies" are more pleasing to people than a bunch of cogs, dark oily substances, and coffee.
        • I have to agree. When I first started with Ubuntu, I liked the earthy tones. But now a year or so in, every time I looked at it, it just brought me down. So now that I've switched to a nice blue Firefox background, the world is happy again.
      • You're clearly a victim of cultural conditioning. Most human beings who don't live in cities see a mixture of browns and greens whenever they look outside, and don't have a problem with it.

        What I'm surpised is that mice made from wood, or covered in leather or some other natural material haven't caught on. Makers of high end automobiles often have wood shift knobs, or cover their plastic knobs with leather (which to extend the joke running in another thread might appeal to the Mac crowd). Not having to to
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @10:31AM (#14792358) Homepage Journal
      Well, people who study this sort of thing say that colors and color combinations send different messages. Light colors suggest ease of use; dark colors suggest power.

      Contrasting color combinations are attention getting and suggest fun. Saturated colors have the same effect. Think the baby isle of the toy store with its bright blues, reds and yellows. Adjacent, analagous color combinations, or tints and shades of the same color, suggest subtlety.

      Decoding this, the typical Microsoft look is cool (as in temperature) and saturated, it is meant to be attention grabbing and suggest ease of use and fun, but it not so much fun and ease of use we are in Playskool territory. The Ubuntu look, in dark earth tints, suggests warmth, subtlety, and power, but not one that intrudes on the user's attention. It is a kind of power at rest. Perhaps a kind of latent power that the knowledgeable user can draw on. Now we know where Radagast got himself to, I guess. He works for Ubuntu.

      My boss and I have frequent disagreements over color choices. He favors what to my eye are garish, oversaturated triadic color schemes. As a sales guy, getting attention is what he thinks of all day; however I believe that this Playskool look is tiresome for the users. I prefer neutral tones, shaded of gray, perhaps with subtle blue shades mixed in, although in truth I rather like a look of old, brownish red gall ink on parchment. My main motivation however is not aesthetic. I want background things to be readily seen, and when I choose a bright blue or red I want it to stand out. Too many bright colors produces visual confusion; you can see the background details but you eye is drawn aay from them; the foreground details are lost.
    • One man's meat, as they say... I changed my Win2k theme to brick (brown/beige/tan) after trying out Ubuntu. The blue began to feel like it's out to stab my eyes after a while. I agree with sibling, use color to provide contrast for important things. I want my core UI to be subtle.
    • I prefer to think of it as chocolatey goodness!
  • by Chaffar ( 670874 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @04:26AM (#14791142)
    Well I use Ubuntu on the desktop and think it's probably the best OS in terms of efficiency (what you can do with it) Vs. effort (how much time you must spend in front of a screen to get your sound card/printer running)... but it is very ressource hungry compared to other *nix distros, so I don't see HOW they would like to translate their success in the desktop market to the phone/PDA market, where ressources are still a luxury.

  • I love Ubuntu and I love Linux, but this doesn't make any sense. Look at their sample use case from TFA:

    Maria and her class mates of a primary school need to make up a report on how to protect the environment of dolphins, digitally recorded by them. They ask assistance from Jeff who selects a suitable subset of Ubuntu applications. He then generates an Embedded Ubuntu system image for the Internet Tablets they have and flashes it on the devices. The kids use Gstreamer, for example, and through WiFi conne

    • Whose maria? is she fit? Surely a video camera would work just as well, oh low and behold, a text book. Seeing a dolphin on a PC monitor is not going to be _THAT_ amazing to a bunch of kids that havent seen one before.
    • by Yosho ( 135835 )
      Ok, I hope Maria's in graduate school because I'm not sure I could pull that off.

      I believe that would be the point of this sort of project -- to make it easy enough that Maria could do it even if she's just your average user.

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"