linux – ɔimoɈɒ

Linux for iPhone. Nahhhh

Brandon Watts writes for OSWeekly: Since cell phones canâ€™t just run a traditional desktop operating system, all options had to be explored while developing the iPhone, and I was interested in the fact that Appleâ€™s engineers seriously looked at Linux since versions had already been developed that could run on a cell phone. Despite the … Continue reading “Linux for iPhone. Nahhhh”

Brandon Watts writes for OSWeekly:

Since cell phones canâ€™t just run a traditional desktop operating system, all options had to be explored while developing the iPhone, and I was interested in the fact that Appleâ€™s engineers seriously looked at Linux since versions had already been developed that could run on a cell phone. Despite the attention that Linux was given by the engineering team, Steve Jobs made it clear that he was not about to use another operating system aside from OS X.

Brandon. Apple didn’t ‘seriously’ look at Linux the way you think they looked at Linux. I have no doubt that, when developing the iPhone OSX distribution, they looked at embedded Linux distros to see how they worked, what compromises they made – but you can’t in any conscience think that Apple seriously considered using Linux for the iPhone – and that’s exactly what the Wired article says.

“Since 2002, when the idea for an Apple phone was first hatched, mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS. But it would need to be radically stripped down and rewritten; an iPhone OS should be only a few hundred megabytes, roughly a 10th the size of OS X.
Before they could start designing the iPhone, Jobs and his top executives had to decide how to solve this problem. Engineers looked carefully at Linux, which had already been rewritten for use on mobile phones, but Jobs refused to use someone else’s software.”

Only a fantasist would think that Apple seriously considered as the base OS for the iPhone. For one thing, the whole thing is GNU-encumbered. Secondly, they had an operating system that had everything they needed including a kick-ass API. Thirdly, did I mention the GNU thing?

Subnotes

I’ve got two ‘subnotes’ in the house here. An Asus eee PC and a MacBook Air. Yes, it’s true that the MacBook cost five times the cost of the eee PC but the differences are startling. Attribute MacBook Air eee PC Screen res/size 13″ @ 1280×800 7 inch @ 800×480 Screen border

I’ve got two ‘subnotes’ in the house here. An Asus eee PC and a MacBook Air. Yes, it’s true that the MacBook cost five times the cost of the eee PC but the differences are startling.

Attribute	MacBook Air	eee PC
Screen res/size	13″ @ 1280×800	7 inch @ 800×480
Screen border	<1 inch	1 inch+
Weight	3 lbs	2 lbs
Thickest point	0.76 inches	1.4 inches
Processor	1.6 GHz dual-core	630 MHz Celeron-M
RAM	2 GB	512 MB
Storage	80 GB (70 GB free)	4 GB (1.3 GB free)
Battery	4 hours	2 hours
Keyboard	Full size, backlit	Cramped hunt-n-peck
Software	Mac OS X plus iLife	Linux

The real question becomes one of why the MacBook air is now being touted as the “one to beat” as if the PC industry was poising itself for defeat just like they did with the iPod. It’s true that Apple tends to attract focus in terms of free publicity but the more apt comparison would be with the Lenovo X300 which is, feature for feature, relatively comparable to the Air, but a lot more expensive and a lot uglier.

I do mention the looks of the machine and, let’s face it, that’s not going to matter to someone who’s used to Linux or Windows. But I appreciate a machine that’s well put together, that doesn’t flex and creak when you lift it and which is easy to carry. Again – like Mac OS X, it’s more than just an aesthetic. The Air is very thin which means that if you’re carrying it with books/papers then it just fits in. The eee PC needs a bit more attention because it’s an awkward shape (half A4, 1.4 inches thick at the widest point) and in a bag, the awkward shape is liable to deform or damage other things in the bag. I’d certainly think twice about carrying the two together in a bag.

I don’t like the eee PC. It’s a perfect example of you get what you pay for. The plastic is cheap and ugly, there’s a strange amount of flex in the unit, sleep functions are almost entirely absent and how anyone can work on that keyboard with that screen. And it’s so sluggish. Yes, it boots up marginally quicker than the MacBook Air but then the MacBook Air has better battery life and very seldom needs rebooted (as Sleep works!) whereas the eee PC needs rebooted often. And the wireless? Is it just Linux? Can’t it ‘just work’. Can’t it automatically reconnect to my two different WiFi networks? Why does it need reconnected manually every time?

To be honest, I’d be more likely to wonder where the utility of the eee PC comes in when compared to the iPod touch, the Nokia N810 and other such devices. It’s the bare minimum of a computer – the UI, capabilities and portability of the N810 and iPod touch leave it far behind.

Linux Gaming.

Slashdot got this article from MadPenguin.org on why more Linux users aren’t gamers. Here, of course, is my wisdom. There are two kinds of Linux users. Political and Technical. The Political Linux user will have long abandoned any technology which hasn’t reached his or her standards of political extremism. They’ll have removed all Windows partitions … Continue reading “Linux Gaming.”

Slashdot got this article from MadPenguin.org on why more Linux users aren’t gamers. Here, of course, is my wisdom.

There are two kinds of Linux users. Political and Technical.

The Political Linux user will have long abandoned any technology which hasn’t reached his or her standards of political extremism. They’ll have removed all Windows partitions and yet resent their bank for not catering to their minority needs and the iTunes store and themselves for wanting doohickeys like iPods. They’re the ones with the various shades of window manager and boasting about how power management works. Easy to spot. Easy to lose in a cafÃ© too (just close your MacBook and leave. They’ll take a minute or six to shut down and get packed up.

The Technical user will, of course, be expedient with his or her use of technology. They’ll likely use a MacBook of some shape or size (because, you know, if you don’t you’re some sort of weirdo) which may or may not dual-boot to Linux or Windows. The only reason they have Windows is for their bank or maybe so they can actually play some decent games.

Of course, neither of these definitions explains exactly why there are so few games for Linux. It could be the (entirely correct) perception that Linux users don’t pay money for software. That’ll be a big one right there. And while companies can make a buck selling support for Linux as an operating system, selling support for games isn’t going to go far as people just hacked off when a game doesn’t perform.

What I wonder, however, is why there hasn’t been some sort of “x86 gaming platform” invented. I mean, almost all the hardware out there runs on x86 based machines now. Why not engineer a solution not dissimilar to the PlayStation where the OS was loaded from the disk at the same time as the game? Why hasn’t Intel pulled their finger out? We’d end up with a system where we bought CDs and DVDs, maybe even USB keys, with a base Linux kernel that would autodetect the hardware, run the drivers and autoload the game. The entire game would almost be copied into RAM and there’s your solution. Reboot to play, takes a few seconds to boot and doesn’t require using Windows.

Right. That’s the hard bit thought of. I’ll leave the easy bits (the technical side, the code, hardware, distribution, licensing, advertising and sales) to others.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: