×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel To Challenge Android With Moblin For Mobile Devices

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the and-in-this-corner dept.

Cellphones 108

darien writes "Intel has officially entered the smartphone fight, giving a bullish demonstration at IDF of an Atom-based phone running the latest incarnation of its mobile Linux-based OS, dubbed Moblin for MIDs (mobile internet devices) v2.1. The system isn't aimed at current Atom CPUs, though — they're too power-hungry. 'One of the drivers of this initiative, and a key reason for the acquisition of Wind River, will be Intel's own app store, catering to ultra mobile devices based on the Atom chipset. The Intel Atom Developer Program will make use of Wind River's VxWorks product, which the company believes will help it achieve that developer grail of the 'write once and run on all devices' experience."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

108 comments

Good luck with that (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514217)

Yeah.... good luck. Overtime ahoy!!!

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29514323)

Agreed. Overtime trying to find drivers for example, or getting bluetooth to work.

Re:Good luck with that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29514473)

Did anyone else read "bullish" as bullshit?

Wait... how? (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514277)

The Intel Atom Developer Program will make use of Wind River's VxWorks product, which the company believes will help it achieve that developer grail of the 'write once and run on all devices' experience.

I don't get it. VxWorks is an OS, right? How does that help with "write once, run anywhere"?

Seems to me that Android is doing more towards this, given that native Android apps target a VM, and thus aren't tied to ARM, x86, or anything else. I'm not saying Intel isn't doing this, I just don't see what that has to do with Moblin, VxWorks, or an App Store.

Re:Wait... how? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514363)

The other weird aspect of TFS, beyond your correct points, is that Moblin is Linux based(and a substantially more "orthodox" Linux than android) and was something Intel was doing well before they ate Wind River and acquired VxWorks.

Obviously, I'm sure that subsequent VxWorks releases will be carefully tuned to do their best VxWorking on Atom boards; but the connection between that and Moblin, or Intel's new enthusiasm for app stores, seems quite limited.

Re:Wait... how? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29515049)

After having dealt with various incarnations of VxWorks over the past four years... Massive step backwards. VxWorks is lighter weight than Linux, but a massive leap backwards in terms of networking features and performance. (Remember, VxWorks was chosen over Linux for recent Linksys WRT54G units for cost reasons on the order of $2-5/unit and not overall performance- Units were cheaper to make, but in my experience far less reliable than the older Linux-based units with double the RAM/ROM.)

VxWorks 5.x's networking stack is basically the 1990ish BSD Reno stack, with no new features but a lot of new weird bugs, for example. At least its deficiencies keep me employed.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

SpydeZ (1196075) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522591)

There's an entirely new network stack in VxWorks 6.6 or 6.7 (forget which). Hopefully Linksys et al won't be using the archaic 5.5.1 anymore... Wind River has been trying to get everyone to use 6.x for years. 5.5.1 is on life support, at this point.

Re:Wait... how? (4, Informative)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29516161)

and a substantially more "orthodox" Linux than android

I have no idea where people get their misinformation from, but that statement is completely false!

Android runs a standard Linux kernel, which is to say, Android is "orthodox" Linux. On Android, the differences are above the "Linux" level. They have their own framework known as Android. To say Android is unorthodox is to say KDE and Gnome are unorthodox Linux, which is of course crazy talk.

Re:Wait... how? (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517723)

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own.

Moblin also uses X, I think. Android doesn't.

Thus, many apps you can run on a "desktop" Linux, or even a minimal or server Linux, you could simply recompile for Moblin, but you'd need to actually think about it and port to Android.

So, you're technically right (Linux is just a kernel), but functionally wrong.

Re:Wait... how? (4, Informative)

savuporo (658486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519001)

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own. Meh ? There is a multitude of libc's out there, GLIBC is not the only one. Look up EGLIBC ( debian standard now ) , uClibc, standard on uClinux distros, dietlibc, newlib. The fact that Android uses a BSD-derived Bionic C library for core userspace, does not make the system any less "Linux". Functionally, a lot of linux systems dont ship X, and dont ship loads of other userspace libraries that you may think are "orthodox". Lots of linux systems use busybox for almost all userspace functionality.

Re:Wait... how? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522943)

The fact that Android uses a BSD-derived Bionic C library for core userspace, does not make the system any less "Linux".

However, it's probably what people mean by "less orthodox", and probably causes some compatibility issues.

As for eglibc, that's not so much a differently-designed libc as a fork to avoid the maintainer of glibc, IIRC.

Functionally, a lot of linux systems dont ship X,

Not a lot of them ship some GUI other than X, though -- so it's not as though a typical Android user would want to enable X.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519805)

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own.

Once again, that's simply not true. Many different Linux distributions use different libraries and even variants.

Moblin also uses X, I think. Android doesn't.

So what! X is not Linux. X is not Unix. X is X. Such a statement pretty well validates you have no idea what you're talking about. X is not required to qualify as "Linux" or even "Linux-like". Under your definition, almost all system services, any application which uses curses, or even any application which uses the frame buffer is unorthodox; which is flatly incorrect.

X is a window abstraction and protocol which sits on top of Linux, Unix, Windows, and a variety of other platforms. X is in no way, shape, or form a requisite to qualify anything to be "Linux-like", let alone, "orthodox."

So, you're technically right (Linux is just a kernel), but functionally wrong.

No, I'm technically and functionally correct. You are technically and functionally incorrect on every account.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522983)

Many different Linux distributions use different libraries and even variants.

Which is why I said "most".

Such a statement pretty well validates you have no idea what you're talking about. X is not required to qualify as "Linux" or even "Linux-like".

However, if someone ships a Linux with a completely different GUI serving the same purpose X would have, especially for a platform where X was a credible option, it's not "orthodox".

I don't believe I ever said it wasn't Linux -- so your statement here pretty well validates that you don't read very well.

I'm technically and functionally correct.

Functionally, then, can I expect to take a Linux application and compile it for Android with no changes?

If so, I'm misinformed, and I apologize.

Re:Wait... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29527985)

You should be able to take an application that compiles for a GNU/Linux system and compile it for another GNU/Linux system. However, there are no guarantees that you can compile it for a system that is not GNU/Linux based. Android is not a GNU/Linux system and you can't assume that applications that compiles for GNU/Linux automagically will compile for Android. Why would it?

Re:Wait... how? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29529263)

However, if someone ships a Linux with a completely different GUI serving the same purpose X would have, especially for a platform where X was a credible option, it's not "orthodox".

I think you need to critically review your own statement. Its nonsensical. Android's GUI does not "serve the same purpose X would have". Period. Even more so, "especially for a platform where X was a credible option", is simply dumb as it doesn't apply in the least.

Phones qualify as an "embedded" platform. In this case, the platforms are typically limited in memory and bandwidth. Even more so, gaming is a target for these phones. None of these make using X "a credible option".

And even more so, none of these issues have anything to do with "orthodox", unless your definition, which seems to be your entire position, is orthodox = desktop, which means your own definition is in fact completely unorthodox as headless and GUI-less servers are in fact the orthodox Linux install.

I have no idea why you're intent of negatively painting Android but everything you've stated is completely false - to the degree where is seems you have either an ax to grind or a misinformation agenda to push. Please keep your ax-grinding, misinformation to your self.

Functionally, then, can I expect to take a Linux application and compile it for Android with no changes?

The "no changes" is the tricky part because almost no Linux applications are directly capable for compiling on an embedded system without change. This is because more often than not they use autoconf which requires execution on the target. By you definition, pretty much all Linux software is broken. But, if that is in fact your metric, no matter how invalid it is, it is possible if you use the Ubuntu Android port. But, that hardly validates you position in the least. This is because, most applications typically require some tweaking for new platforms, even when they do use tools such as autoconf.

Bluntly, not only are you wrong, but the position is simply invalid and has no merit in the discussion. Its an uninformed, straw man's argument.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524107)

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own

Android also uses its own video driver architecture, its own window manager, its own desktop, and its own virtual machine. The statement that 'Android is "orthodox" Linux' isn't even true if you only consider "Linux" to be the kernel - Android uses its own kernel with a unique IPC mechanism. As Ars said: Android uses the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux platform. It offers its own totally unique environment that is built on Google's custom Java runtime. There is no glide path for porting conventional desktop Linux applications to Android. Similarly, Java applications that are written for Android can't run in regular Java virtual machine implementations or in standard Java ME environments. This makes Android a somewhat insular platform. (source [arstechnica.com]).

  In fact, according to that article, Android doesn't even use a standard kernel: Android's sophisticated interprocess communication system, which is called Binder, requires a special kernel driver in order to run properly. The driver is in the kernel staging tree and is not enabled - a problematic impediment for the Android execution environment developers. Their current prototype is using a temporary workaround to bypass Binder, but they hope that the necessary patches can be enabled in the kernel for the next Ubuntu release so that the execution environment can work properly.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29529081)

Android also uses its own video driver architecture, its own window manager, its own desktop, and its own virtual machine. The statement that 'Android is "orthodox"

So what you're saying is, the majority of Linux installs are all unorthodox. Keep in mind the majority of Linux installs are server systems, not desktops. You metric seems to be, if its not a desktop system its unorthodox, which is beyond silly.

Also, you quote is misleading and inaccurate. By your definition, python is "unorthodox", as is Java, as is almost every language or tool which implements an abstraction layer. Simply put, that position is garbage.

Custom drivers hardly makes systems "unorthodox". By that definition, every computer in the world is unorthodox. The reality is, you are hard pressed to find any embedded system which does not have a custom driver of some type. Likewise, most desktop and server systems typically have one or more custom drivers. Inclusion is anything but unorthodox.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29529791)

Orthodox: Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted.

I really don't see how Android fits that description, given the points already raised (especially the fact that the kernel is modified with a custom IPC mechanism). But until there is a scientifically testable description of "orthodox linux", the argument is over a personal interpretation of semantics.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517811)

Come on, we all know he wasn't referring to the kernel. Android is not a real Linux distro like people understand the term. KDE and Gnome are also not complete distros on their own.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

savuporo (658486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519075)

Android is not a real Linux distro like people understand the term.
Then its a problem with people not understanding the term. Loads and loads of embedded linux distros dont include desktop stuff, are using different core C libraries, dont ship stuff like X, bash, dash and so on.
Look into distros like Montavista.

Well, ya (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519577)

"KDE and Gnome are also not complete distros on their own."

You are correct, but they could be, and IMO, they *should be*, because they both have stuff that works perfectly fine for the most part and have established organizational structure and name cred. Either of them could have taken a lead there and developed a business model around their efforts, like canonical is trying or Redhat, etc has established. And, they can still be "non profits". Non profits can make money besides from donations, and also can pay salaries. The OLPC charges money for their work and product, the kids laptop. They just screwed the pooch in not taking advantage of economies of scale and income by not releasing a "civilian" model for sale, perhaps with a modest but useful 10% markup they could use to further their "charity" efforts, instead of the extremely limited and completely screwed up effort where they charged a full 100% markup over what in essence was already the full "retail" price, and even then had it limited geographically and with bad shipping and so on..

    Well, some other "real" companies saw what they did wrong, took the basic idea, which was quite sound and reflected a still untapped at the time huge business niche, and ran with it (and it didn't take long for them to do so, either, because it was obvious and easier than not to do) and now look at the explosion in netbooks. That could have been them, easily. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not being flexible or applying plain vanilla business practices to what they were doing. They could have garnered more interest, built and shipped way more units, and taken an early and big lead in the "dinky and cheap but still functional enough to be useful" laptop market. They only needed two different enough appearing products (with a small but reasonable pricing difference4 as well) to still follow all their basic philospophy, the "poor kids laptop for learning and exploring", and then have "other than that", a normal one. Cosmetic differences and color and perhaps a bit more oomph in the street commercial version for sale in the more richer parts of the world, etc would have differentiated them out on the street so that the kids laptop wouldn't wind up on ebay, instead of staying in the poor kids hands.

Canonical is the only one big company out there now that has an emphasis on "linux on the desktop", and that's why they are ahead there in that particular market, because of that focus, most of the rest of the big names are server and "enterprise" oriented, and either of the two big main DEs could have done the same exact thing, just emphasizing joe regular desktop user instead.

    There's still plenty of room out there to explore linux on the desktop, perhaps even with a full guaranteed to work stack like apple does with both software and hardware. There are SIX billion people out there on this rock, that's a lot of potential customers.

      Gnome and KDE are in a good position to do that, because they already have and actively develop the bulk of what a desktop user actually uses on a day to day basis. Adding in the kernel and some other stuff and making it all tie together is bog standard, and completely free for them to use, just like any number of smaller distros do that now. And the smaller, well, heck, even the larger distros primarily usually just pick Gnome or KDE anyway to be the default "facing" environment that endusers see and interact with, which is really the most important part.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519867)

Come on, we all know he wasn't referring to the kernel. Android is not a real Linux distro like people understand the term. KDE and Gnome are also not complete distros on their own.

I think you misunderstand. KDE and Gnome are to Linux as Android is to Linux. KDE, Gnome, and Android are not complete distros on their own, but all sit atop Linux. Just the same, technically, Android can run on something other than Linux just as KDE and Gnome do.

So one need not simply refer "to the kernel" here. Simply put, his statement is factually incorrect and technically misleading anyway you choose to look at it.

Re:Wait... how? (2, Informative)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514399)

Because Green Hills is in the business of porting vxworks to any embedded system on the market. Green Hills provides the cross compilers. In fact, you probably can't even begin to think of introducing a new embedded cpu without talking with green hills to coordinate a port. It's kind of hard to shoot too many holes in a strategy that revolves around vxworks.

Re:Wait... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29515159)

I am sure that CodeSourcery would like to hear about WindRiver being the only decent compiler tech maker.

Re:Wait... how? (2, Insightful)

ceallaigh (584362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514807)

I believe the Intel's focus for WindRiver is their software tools. Note that WindRiver already markets BSP kits for Linux for OEMs. It includes debuggers, emulators, and build systems. With WindRiver's tools and Intel's hardware they can have a very compelling Moblin Linux solution for potential hardware vendors. Sean

Re:Wait... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29515055)

I don't get it. VxWorks is an OS, right? How does that help with "write once, run anywhere"?

By ensuring that all devices from the smallest phone to the largest supercomputer use x86 processors.

The next step will be to buy legislation to ensure that competing architectures (ARM) are prohibited
for some reason (making it compulsory to have a trusted module patented by Intel or something like that
on all devices having a processor, from your toaster to the space shuttle or its replacement).

The next step will be to make it illegal for CPU designers to work for any company but Intel.

Be afraid of Intel's monopolistic practices. Be very afraid!

Re:Wait... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29516637)

Yes because everyone knows that ARM and AMD chips don't really exist because of this "monopoly" Intel has.

Monopoly. You keep saying that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Wait... how? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517755)

By ensuring that all devices from the smallest phone to the largest supercomputer use x86 processors.

I'm sorry, I have to ask just about the same question again...

How does VxWorks ensure that everything runs x86?

Re:Wait... how? (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518175)

if im not mistaken, Wind River had two os's... VxWorks (Their original OS and had features like RTOS) and they also had something linuxy that they also had a vxworks brand on it..

I could be wrong though.

VxWorks was certianly nothing like linux though, so how you combine something destined for vxworks and linux together is beyond me... perhaps its jsut a badly worded statement or theres a back story here thats gone missing... maybe they're going to OSS VxWorks and roll up some of its components to linux? Or maybe they're going to make the two interoperable somehow? who knows?

Jeez (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514327)

Is there anyone these days who ISN'T releasing a mobile OS?

Re:Jeez (2, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514407)

Considering that the next computing revolution is happening in the mobile market, I'm actually surprised there aren't MORE mobile OSs. I mean, who desn't want to be the next Microsoft???

Re:Jeez (3, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515187)

erm.. Microsoft. They're the only ones with a second-rate attitude to mobile devices, although I heard than WinMo 7 will come out (eventually) and have support for social networking!

I use the mobile device marketplace as a way to explain to managers that Linux is the next big thing - they already know mobile is the big marketplace (gartner et al told them so) but they don't realise that Intel with Moblin, Nokia with Maemo, Palm with webOS, and Google with Android are all Linux OSs.

I'm Confused. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514345)

Ok, the articles linked to by the summary are already slashdotted, and, even by slashdot standards (or lack), the /. article summary is highly confusing. . . Is Intel planning to use Moblin, VxWorks, or both? I mean, the article non-quoted text talks about Moblin, but the quote talks about VxWorks, so which is it?

Clear as mud (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29525121)

As if it weren't muddy enough, apparently Intel is porting Silverlight [zdnet.com] (not Moonlight, Silverlight) to Moblin.

Every time I think Intel has got it all figured out they pull something like this to remind me that they don't really understand. They're like the 7 year old kid that steals his parents car and drives it 40 miles down the road to buy ice cream, and then tries to pay with lego blocks and a wilted Yugi-oh card. Genius, but misguided genius. They're the RainMan of IT.

Intel, one more time: IT'S A TRAP!. It's always a trap. What are you going to do if this thing is really popular and causes an huge swell of support for your product and puts Silverlight over the adoption knee where it's taking over the world? Do you really think Microsoft won't come out with a Silverlight 6 - Now with No Moblin but enhanced Windows 8 Mobile? Then what? Your name is then mud in consumer electronics - again - because you can't maintain a consistent experience. You guys have been here the whole time. You should know better. Is there no institutional memory in that place? Alzheimer's setting in? What?

Oh, and Miguel de Icaza: Congratulations. You've been had. Again. But then you knew that.

Stupid (4, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514359)

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The main selling point seems to be that it can run regular Linux apps. Which of course you would not want to do in the first place in devices with such a constrained screen size and different input methods. You are better off writing apps for that device instead. They should have just tried to improve Android instead.

Re:Stupid (3, Insightful)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514665)

Being able to run the same apps on the device as I do on a Linux host would seem like a good thing to me. It frees my data.

Re:Stupid (2, Informative)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514841)

Not true, I get on the command line of my iPhone all the time. There's nothing like being able to SSH into a machine from anywhere you've got reception. Its got nice little touch gestures for different command short cuts and everything.

Re:Stupid (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515461)

Not true, I get on the command line of my iPhone all the time. There's nothing like being able to SSH into a machine from anywhere you've got reception. Its got nice little touch gestures for different command short cuts and everything.

I once tried to use vi using accelerometer gestures. Now all my colleagues think i'm epileptic.

Re:Stupid (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514857)

What is wrong with grep, find, Perl, etc?

Re:Stupid (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515661)

What is wrong with grep, find, Perl, etc?

Exactly the point. These days, anyone who thinks of Linux automatically thinks of KDE or Gnome, as if unscaleable GUI bloatware was always a part of the system.

It wasn't, but somebody had to go and tirelessly, endlessly scream for Linux to become a clone of Windows, and so now Linux fails at what could have been its' ideal niche application.

The more I read Slashdot recently, the more profoundly grateful I become that I essentially live in a cave. The corruption, cowardice, short sightedness, laziness, and above all, relentless, utterly brainless stupidity of mainstream humanity is, at times, beyond belief.

But for the rest of you, I'm guessing that's just another day at the office.

Re:Stupid (1)

savuporo (658486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519199)

Just that on a small touch screen device, these things are utterly useless without a GUI wrapping the functions. And the point was about GUI apps.

A better argument would have been "They should have just tried to improve GNOME Mobile/Maemo/ Ubuntu Mobile/OpenEmbedded/Hildon" instead.

Re:Stupid (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29525269)

Quite a few phones can edit documents, therefore they can edit perl scripts and their output.

It might be utterly useless for you, but not for me.

Re:Stupid (-1, Troll)

dargaud (518470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514861)

The main selling point seems to be that it can run regular Linux apps. Which of course you would not want to do in the first place in devices with such a constrained screen size and different input methods.

Which was exactly my conclusion last week when I chose an HTC Hero (Android) over a Nokia N900 (Linux). In one case you have a distribution channel for many specialized apps, in the other case you have... What, ./configure && make & sudo make install ? Or do they come up with yet another distribution channel after rpm, deb, etc ?

Re:Stupid (3, Informative)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514911)

Maemo, found on the Nokia N900, is Debian based. It's most likely that installing apps on a Maemo device will involve a simple 'apt-get install '.

Re:Stupid (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524817)

"apt-get install" is fine if you like the typer box terminal thingie. It's totally retro, and I respect that. Me, I just like to click the apt-url [ubuntu.com] thingie. Some nice person built us a search engine [apturl.net] so if you only know you want CAD or whatever, it will find you some without you know the package name. Then you click the "install it now" button and it installs. Wipe hands on pants.

Re:Stupid (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526821)

I don't know why I got moderated troll when both replies basically confirmed what I wrote. It's good to have apt-whatever to install any linux app under the sun, but is there a separate distribution channel for mobile-optimized apps ? That was the essence of the question.

Re:Stupid (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515599)

You are so far wrong here that it's not even funny.

There are more apps available for Linux than just Open Office and The Gimp. Tens of thousands more. Maybe you don't use them all, but some of us use ones that would work just fine on a mobile phone platform (Apache, for one).

A Linux Phone with a wireless data link, usb servo controller and a webcam for example makes an interesting onboard avionics computer for an RPV - just to spew a quick one off the top of my head.

You keep your Android if that's what you want - there's room for both. But don't go telling people you know that Linux isn't a good fit for this or that segment until you broaden your interests a little more, ok?

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29516143)

Stupid? Are you aware of how much code can be reused? Sure you have to rewrite the GUI part, but that's exactly what has been done on KOffice for Maemo. And what about Firefox or Flash? Thanks to linux Nokia has now an adventage over Apple's iPhone with well known apps running on a mobile phone (that btw iPhone can't do)

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519715)

What is stupid is promoting android. Android is a closed system, that runs on closed hardware. Have you owned an android powered phone? You must not have. You cant even login to your phone unless you have a connection to a cell providers network to authenticate with Google's servers? WTF?!?!

Re:Stupid (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522083)

Which parts of Android are closed source? Closed hardware is unfortunately a feature of this market. The fact that cellphone operators love lock-in does not help either. Even if you try to get a laptop you often get a lot of lock-in.

I am against exclusive apps stores. iTunes store, Android Market... Why can't I select my own store of choice?

Re:Stupid (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526343)

> Stupid, stupid, stupid. The main selling point seems to be that it can run regular Linux apps. Which of course you would not want to do in the first place in devices with such a constrained screen size and different input methods.

But you could use OPIE [wikipedia.org] or GPE [wikipedia.org] for example.

What's In A Name (1, Informative)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514487)

From Moblin's site [moblin.org]:

Moblin uses Clutter to create exciting, efficient, and intuitive user interfaces.

Worthy competitor to Android, let alone Apple? Not a chance, and you can tell just by looking at the name that was chosen for the UI. But they'd probably have a good shot at Failblog.

Re:What's In A Name (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514507)

Moblin isn't worth a shit on the netbooks it's supposed to run on, either (CRASH!) It's amazing how unreliable Intel has managed to make Linux on their own hardware. VxWorks has just one purpose, minimum overhead in a RTOS. Out of the box it does jack shit and probably won't work anyway. This is a dumb idea from dumb people.

Re:What's In A Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29515229)

Moblin isn't worth a shit on the netbooks it's supposed to run on

You keep saying that and other people keep telling you that your experience is fairly unique. As a counter point, it's rock solid here. Btw, there are still no bugs matching your descriptions in their bugzilla.

It would be nice if Moblin supported every machine out there, but considering that the first Moblin devices are only now about to be announced (rumours say Dell will announce a netbook at IDF), I'd say your complaints are a bit early. Maybe you could first wait for a release, get an actually supported netbook and then bitch if it doesn't work?

Android already conver that market (5, Informative)

mhamel (314503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514515)

It's like the 80s and the begining of windows all over again but for mobile devices. The question is what will be the OS that can use the most software. Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

What is funny in that mobile war is the position of Apple. Pretty much like when the first Mac came by at the begining of the 80s. They have a great product. But they are too closed. So it's going to be everybody against them. They can't win. Dell, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola, Philips, Samsung, Sony Ericson (on the open side this time) , and many others already have android phones.

I predict that soon when you'll want to build a mobile application, it will have to run on Android first. That way it will be available to everybody. The rest will be second thought. Just like the market for computer right OS now with windows. But this time the winner will be the open platform because it's been early in the market and the manufacturer will simply find it easier then going for windows mobile.

Re:Android already conver that market (2, Informative)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514591)

Windows mobile also very closed

How is that? Is Windows mobile more closed than Android? I thought Windows mobile has an native API that allows pretty much everything, whereas Android exposes only a sandboxed Java environment.

... and not sexy

Agreed...

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

mhamel (314503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514651)

It's closed because the handset builders have to buy it and enter in a contract with Microsoft to offer it. For a programmer a good API will never be like having access to the source code. I know because I lived throught both.

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29523165)

Except WinMo is shared source... so you do have access to the source.

Re:Android already conver that market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29525631)

You have to buy a the programming tools for windows, and it's... it's windows.
He didn't meant that kind of open... being that open is bad since any app can rip your OS apart.

The sandbox for the application allows things to operate inside of a... well.. sandbox. Far more secure, and predictable.

Re:Android already conver that market (4, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514803)

Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

You list Apple, and everyone smaller than them. What about Blackberry? Nokia? All the billions of Java phones out there?

I don't disagree with you, but note a difference with the 80s computing analogy is that aside from the ones trying to push an operating system, there are also loads of less expensive (and yes, not as good, but you get what you pay for, and still fulfil most people's needs), that make up the vast majority of the market.

Of course, there were a lot of computer makes around in the 80s, but the other difference is that these phones today do support a common standard, mainly thanks to Java, and also due to functionality being offered on websites). It's not perfect, but it's way better than the bad old days of computing where you needed a different version for every make and model on the market. Now a single application runs on pretty much any phone.

Except then along comes the Iphone, and changes that by specificially not allowing Java. So now we have to return to the days where special "For Your Iphone" applications are needed, to do what the rest of us were doing for years before. It's great marketing for Apple though, because people see these "Posted using XXX for Iphone" everywhere - all the people using ordinary phones are using open standards (either a Java app, or via the website itself), and thus don't get the free advertising spam for that make of phone.

What is funny in that mobile war is the position of Apple. Pretty much like when the first Mac came by at the begining of the 80s. They have a great product. But they are too closed. So it's going to be everybody against them. They can't win. Dell, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola, Philips, Samsung, Sony Ericson (on the open side this time) , and many others already have android phones.

I predict that soon when you'll want to build a mobile application, it will have to run on Android first.

I agree, and I hope so. I loved the Amiga back in the day, but looking back, it seems obvious that from a hardware point of view, the PC would be the winner, ever since it became a standard for business use in the early 80s. It was just a case of what OS it ran.

One problem however is that there is yet to be an open standard for mobile hardware. In some sense, there doesn't need to be, if systems like Java or Android are used. But I still have a worry Apple may be able to gain a monopoly on the hardware, because there's no open standard for potential new companies to use for mobile hardware.

The PC won because when every company said "Hey, let's get into making computers", most of them took the easy option and built PCs. With phones, they're left struggling to come up with their own hardware, or more likely, not bother at all.

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515987)

It wasn't some sort of master win by the IBM PC that doomed Apple to obscurity. IIRC, IBM lost some sort of lawsuit which opened up their platform. They fought it tooth and nail, IBM would have been quite happy to have a walled garden architecture just like Apple. Heck, we're still using PCs today!

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518477)

I agree with your points for the most part... however, android has more in common with the PC then any other platform... plus, back in those days there were no FOSS alternatives (not real ones anyways)...

The reason i say that is similar to how people got into making PC - an open standard. Alot of phone makers would love one that allows them to make a phone that is fairly industry-wide compatible and the old real option at this point is windows.

Everyone would love to be able to build an iphone compatible but apple would never do that (Which is a pity imho cause that would catch on - you could see rim one day making that switch perhaps).

The big plus with android though is its potential for slimming down. Take the biggest owner in the market, nokia, the big sellers in their phones run on small chips that are just good enough to run symbian. Symbians greatest asset is that it can run on a much smaller footprint than windows can and ultimately makes for cheaper hardware. Android has a similar potential.

My point was simply this, android brings alot of potential to the industry, its not there yet, but it will be. consider:

1) its a sexy interface
2) its not exactly slow
3) its highly modifiable
4) it can be cut down to almost nothing
5) anyone can use it
6) its very powerful
(most of that I learnt by hacking my tytn2 to run android - horrible phone that tytn2, yet most people say its one of the best windows phones and probably sadly true)

which gives it all the advantages of all the other OS's and some more.
1) sexy like an iphone
2) slim like symbian
3) anyone can build on it like windows
4) its open like... err... openmoko? moblin?
5) its powerfull like iphone and windows mobile.
6) much like j2me phones, you dont have to target the cpu, but unlike j2me it has alot more power.

Anyways, thats my 0.02, its probably mostly wrong.

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519325)

Of course, there were a lot of computer makes around in the 80s, but the other difference is that these phones today do support a common standard, mainly thanks to Java, and also due to functionality being offered on websites). It's not perfect, but it's way better than the bad old days of computing where you needed a different version for every make and model on the market. Now a single application runs on pretty much any phone.

What universe do you live in? You've obviously never been a mobile developer if you think this even remotely resembles reality. Having been a mobile developer for over 2 years, I can tell you that Java has done absolutely nothing to solve device fragmentation. The language doesn't matter; it's the libraries, of course.

Every carrier has a hundred devices, and every single device has a different bug in its implementation of MIDP. With the strict size requirements for J2ME, for all but the simplest applications you can't even attempt combined builds. You are forced to make a different build for each device. Just wait until you try something *really* broken, like say, playing audio...

And smartphones of course use different APIs. MIDP, Android and BlackBerry have entirely different windowing toolkits. How do you expect an app to be magically portable between them? Even BlackBerries, where RIM has tight control over the devices and API, exhibits lots of fragmentation between devices and OS versions. Java is quite hostile to incompatible libraries, giving classloader errors for the slightest inconsistencies. When you buy a BlackBerry app from a third party site, especially for games, you almost always need to specify the exact model of your phone.

What is needed to reduce fragmentation is a rigorous certification process to strictly enforce the requirements of the platform. Sun had their chance; they could have required extensive testing to put that J2ME/MIDP logo on a phone. Unfortunately Sun failed, and Android seems to be deliberately going down the same path. I don't see the landscape getting better any time soon.

Re:Android already conver that market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522947)

The de-facto standard for mobile hardware is Texas Instruments. The SoC and half of the supporting ICs in many of these devices are made by them.

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29523857)

I think Apple can win. The iPhone may be closed but so far being closed and limited are normal for phones and people keep buying them anyway. Also, they have a strong base of developers. Furthermore, the phone is more appealing than its competition out of the box with no additional applications installed.

Assuming the programs are written in Java with a few custom Java include files, I think the downfall of Android will be the ease of viewing the source code of Java, and the lack of a way to profit from building apps. People will just be able to copy and paste the source code to rip off app developers' hard work, or copy an entire app into their phone from a friend without paying. This will lead to for-profit developers (and a lot of people who have apps good enough to sell) sticking with the closed-source iPhone and Windows Mobile. Android will be left with people who are willing to donate their time, and have to deal with al of the baggage that comes with that, such as "if you don't like my interface then build your own! If you want that feature, program it yourself!".

I personally want a Google phone so I can write programs for it that my friends and I will use. But if I were in it for the money, I would get an entry-level MacBook and write iPhone apps. I think your prediction that everybody will want their apps to run on Android first so they "will be available to everybody" is flawed. I think some of those people will want their phone to run on the system that "will be available to everybody who pays the most ridiculous prices for phones and phone downloads". It really seems to be a question of who will win between a platform where developers get paid and a platform where everything is free. And we know how that's gone with operating systems so far...

Re:Android already conver that market (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29527543)

The question is what will be the OS that can use the most software. Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

Is this a joke? By far, Nokia is the largest provider of smartphones in the World (smartphones, not just regular cell phones).

Right now, Nokia and Windows Mobile are the two biggest paltforms "that can use the most software". Hands-down, they allow you to do the most stuff, and they give you the most flexibility than either the iPhone or Android. For instance, the iPhone doesn't allow you to run more than one app at a time (buggy Backgrounder utility excepted). I, on the other hand, routinely run at least five apps at the very same time on my Nokia phone (combining apps is the true killer application, on the road for instance, I wouldn't be able to get audio turn-by-turn direction, visual live traffic information, live information on where the cops are hiding, and live information on where I can get gas for cheap, because there isn't one single app that does do all these things perfectly. Google Maps does try, but it's not there yet). At home or anywhere else for that matter, without the power to run multiple apps at the same time, I also wouldn't be able to queue my favorite podcasts for current/later downloads, play last.fm/youtube/flash videos/music when I felt like it, play my audiobooks/music as I'm going to sleep, and maintain my presence on a dozen social networking sites and half a dozen Voice-over-IP sites at the same time (all still while having a perfectly functioning phone as well, that will mute itself and keep the states of my apps when my phone rings until it hangs up).

Right now, Android only allows you to run apps that are stored on its in-built memory (that's something between 100 or 200 MB). On the other hand, my Nokia allows me to run apps directly from my memory card (that's 8GB). Right now, I can turn my Nokia into anything, a wifi hotspot, an internet phone, a true video-teleconferencing phone, a video streaming server/player/recorder, a web server, a p2p client, a computer/TV remote-control, an exercise-coach/trainer/logger, a game player. You name it, I can basically do it. What's more, I can usually do it using a free app, and I certainly don't need to decide which apps are my favorites, and which are not, since I can run them all directly from my memory card.

And the only problem with either Nokia, or Windows Mobile, is that with the freedom they give you, and with the options they give developers, that they have no unifying interface (not even one single unifying development environment), so both developers and users are given a plethora of options -- at the expense of confusing the average smart-phone user (at least initially), but personally, I find that a small price to pay for actually being able to do the things I actually want to do with it (without voiding its warranty and without stopping its future updates).

Internet money (1)

cdgeorge (775179) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514539)

The reason for not using Android is of course the Android market. Should Intel want some of that internet money, they need to create their own app market. Which they did.

Good (4, Informative)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514561)

I'd rather buy Moblin than Android on a mobile device. Android replaces basically every part of what we usually call "Linux", except for the kernel (which of course actually *is* Linux). Moblin has a heavily custom desktop environment but other than that it seems like a reasonably "normal" distribution. If I were to do any hacking on the device I'd bought, I'd like it to be a familiar environment. If I'm downloading others' apps I'd feel more confident in getting a good range of apps if they can code in a familiar environment.

Android's good because it's an open platform. I can easily believe that for really resource-constrained apps it's better than Moblin. But on anything that can handle it, I'd rather have a "real" distro than Android. The diversity of having multiple mobile platforms is a good thing; I just personally would rather be able to run a familiar Unix-like environment on all my devices, even if they use a custom front-end to fit the form factor. Improvements to infrastructure (kernel, X.org, shell, apps, whatever) required for a small device are something that I'd like to see integrated upstream so that everyone benefits.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515247)

I'd rather buy Moblin than Android on a mobile device. Android replaces basically every part of what we usually call "Linux", except for the kernel (which of course actually *is* Linux). Moblin has a heavily custom desktop environment but other than that it seems like a reasonably "normal" distribution

I don't think I'd call that an advantage. Linux-the-normal-distribution has a lot of aspects that aren't well-suited to a small-screen mobile device, and keeping those aspects around results in a worst-of-both-worlds compromise. Think about Windows Mobile (especially pre-2003): the interface carry-overs from Windows proper are the chief reason it's an also-ran on PDAs and phones, and it's only as those features disappear (and the platform diverges further from the desktop) that it's getting any traction at all. That many WM apps pay only lip-service to the platform and obey desktop conventions makes matters worse; keeping the desktop's UI encourages some pretty bad behaviour on the part of many developers.

There's no real point to extending the traditional Linux desktop to a phone for the same reason: there's nothing worthwhile to carry over. There's enough of this problem on the Linux desktop, which suffers from the platform's focus on servers and technical users. Google was right to junk as much as they can in favour of a user interface that's built for a mobile device. If they've made a mistake anywhere, it's that they've allowed the handset makers too much control over the interface, weakening the Android brand and hamstringing the phone with glitchy, tacked-on interface garbage that doesn't integrate well with the underlying OS (have you seen HTC TouchFlo on Windows Mobile? It's like lipstick on a pig).

I'm not saying that Moblin will be Windows CE awful, but I can't see it being iPhone or even Android-good if it's carrying over just about any aspect of the Linux GUI, and I can't see ports of desktop Linux apps being anything more than oft-frustrating.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515473)

I probably don't really want an existing DE on my mobile phone (for instance), I agree with you on that. But there's a lot of space between Moblin's approach (which already uses a custom DE that's specialised for netbook-class devices) and Android's approach (which replaces almost everything in the stack, as well as the UI). I'd also like for the primary supported method of writing applications to not be a strange combination of Java and a custom bytecode interpreter / JIT - that's the way Android has done it although I had the impression they were moving to support native applications.

If Moblin rewrites the entire user interface and doesn't default to using any "normal" Linux apps, it will still be *way* closer to "normal" Linux than Android is. Android doesn't use glibc, AFAIK - it doesn't even use X.org for display. Moblin on a phone would "merely" have an unfamiliar interface and apps, where Android is basically unfamiliar to me in every way - it's a significantly larger change than just the UI level.

I'm not a normal case, I suppose, in that I like to hack about with devices. However, it seems to me that the closer-to-vanilla environment provided by Moblin is going to be easier to get existing OSS developers working on and I'd like to benefit from their work too.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29527361)

When someone builds something there are usualy reasons for why something is done in one way rather than another.

Android doesn't use glibc because Google wanted to keep GPL out of user-space and because size and performance is of importance on mobile devices (Bionic is half the size of glibc and it performs better).

Re:Good (1)

onemorechip (816444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521715)

I think the competition between Android and Moblin will be good, in that it will ensure that neither camp sits back on its laurels. Just in the near term, I hope the potential market threat Moblin represents will shake Google into implementing Bluetooth file sharing, right now a prominent shortcoming in Android.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29525849)

Think about Windows Mobile (especially pre-2003): the interface carry-overs from Windows proper are the chief reason it's an also-ran on PDAs and phones,

The differences between Android and conventional Linux-based OSes run quite a bit deeper than the UI--Android is a very different architecture altogether. It's like saying MacOS X is BSD UNIX--IT ISN'T. It shares a lot of common elements, it is somewhat compatible but architecturally it is VASTLY DIFFERENT, far more than skin-deep-different. Therefore, one could say that those chief reasons for WinMo's failures could be addressed with a far more "conventional" Linux-based OS distribution. That is where Moblin comes in--it is an application framework that sits far higher up the stack. Whereas Android starts going its own way almost right above the kernel, Moblin sits atop an essentially complete core installation of Fedora, and in fact is technically "distribution agnostic" and can alternatively be installed atop Ubuntu as well. As Moblin is under the stewardship of the Linux Foundation the logical end goal would be to make Moblin an application framework upon the base install of ANY LSB-compliant OS.

And, I suggest you troll YouTube for demonstrations of Moblin--you'll quickly see it is very much NOT a "carry-over" of desktop Linux from a user perspective.

If course, Intel was the founding institution for Moblin, and its heritage is one of being optimised for the Intel Atom/x86 architecture, so Intel is pushing for Moblin smartphones because it is a software platform ready today for its hardware being released shortly..but here is an interesting situation: The Linux foundation is not beholden to Intel, Moblin is Free software and nothing impedes it from being built or optimised for another platform..notably ARM based competing platforms. For example, the Clutter 3D UI framework builds on many ARM based devices (I've seen it working nicely on the BeagleBoard), as to pretty close to all the essential parts of Moblin Core. Moblin 2.x could be ported to ARM with mostly "integration work" (figuring out compiler options, "glue logic" programming and scripts and so on).

There's no real point to extending the traditional Linux desktop to a phone for the same reason: there's nothing worthwhile to carry over.

I BEG TO DIFFER! The "Linux desktop" is more than the desktop environment/user interface, and as has been demonstrated there is quite a lot of the stack that is worthwhile to retain, even if it doesn't "make sense" in Mobile applications. Why do I say this? Because I think far too many people are demonstrating a very short-sighted view that mobile devices must always be mobile! For some reason, nobody thinks to look at how notebook/laptop PCs are used by so many people--they are carried about much of the time, but as often as not (maybe most of the time in fact) they sit on a desk connected to a full sized keyboard, mouse and monitor! This is especially the case with corporate PCs, where in many setups almost all users are issued notebooks.

If nobody gives it a second thought about something that weighs a couple kg and has occupies a footprint larger than an A4 sheet of paper being used in "two modes" then why should it be different for a pocket-sized computer? If these tiny devices are so powerful why artificially constrain the software on them to something geared towards mobile use? What is keeping us from putting USB host and HDMI ports on these devices (or on a dock the device sits in) such that we can use them on larger screens with full keyboards and mice? THAT is the problem with Android! It is designed for SMALL devices and needs some HEAVY modification to work outside those severe constraints. Critics already doubt Android's capability on netbook sized applications, much less when used in desktop or living-room-console situations! Hell, only in the most very recent release was there official coverage for something as basic as supporting DisplayMetrics to handle resolutions other than 320*480 properly! Even Google themselves acknowledge this and have a separate ChromeOS project.

But being devils advocate here--isn't Google potentially making a mistake here? Sure it sounds all great to radically re-engineer the OS to be totally optimal for very specific uses but then aren't they falling into the trap MSFT has contended with for years of supporting two different architectures that have levels of incompatability (for example DOS-based vs NT based Windows for home and business, then later NT and CE based Windows families for desktop/server and mobile devices)? Does that not limit the potential of physically small but powerful designs?

Moblin presents a compelling option becaue it leaves the OS to be flexible--imagine a highly portable, very-low-power system that was incredibly useful--like the Tandy 100/102 was in the day--that when on the road could be used with Moblin or a similar environment enabled, that could be connected when settled in at the home, office or hotel room to full-sized peripherals, at which point you could switch off the Moblin environment and run, say, GNOME and standard-sized applications until you are ready to move again? Sure, it wouldn't be as totally powerful as a larger device, but at around-GHz speed it would handle essential computing tasks perfectly fine. Really, as a workstation a pocket-sized computer would be just fine--intensive computing and storage tasks could be handled by a networked server that can sit in a closet somewhere. Then, you needn't bother with multiple personal devices--your computer would be your phone would be your media player would be your daytimer...

wowwwww (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29514593)

id like to go back to the past where technology is poor rather than confused to pick one
http://www.techandgizmo.com

Maemo (and other mobile linux derivatives) (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29514759)

If Intel is helping with tuning linux to mobile hardware, how will that affect other mobile linux OS's? Is Intel going to try to have their own distro or just working on improving the hardware/software interaction of its mobile chipsets?

Re:Maemo (and other mobile linux derivatives) (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515167)

Last June I submitted this story [slashdot.org] on joint endeavors between Intel and Nokia in the mobile space.

"The partnership will center around several open-source mobile Linux software projects, including the Moblin platform for Atom-based processors and the Maemo operating system developed by Nokia. Intel will also acquire a licence from Nokia that is used in modem chips to connect to third generation cellular networks."

not targeted for the same users / devices (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515373)

the moblin site advertises it for netbooks and "netttops". netbooks have laptop-like batteries which are orders of magnitude more powerful than those in true mobile devices. nettops are "very small form factor , inexpensive, low-wattage desktop computers" (from wikipedia).

even on android which puts a lot of design into getting the most out of your battery, you can easily shoot yourself in the foot by running the simplest process continuously. people don't understand how tiny and weak mobile batteries are. trying to run any "normal" operating system on it is going to fail for that reason.

MIDs, or smartphones? (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29515983)

MID may stand for "mobile internet device", but is understood to be a different and larger form factor (4"+ screens) than smartphones. Something being competitive for a MID, isn't necessarily so for a smartphone.

In fact, Intel and Nokia were palling around just the other day (http://www.h-online.com/open/What-does-the-Intel-Nokia-mobile-Internet-deal-mean-for-open-source--/features/113612), talking about splitting the market - Moblin for MID, Maemo for smartphones. Of course, now they're muddying the waters a bit, keeping the competition guessing, perhaps?

why? no really, why? (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518249)

android, maemo, motorola rolled their own at one point and are not jumping on the android bandwagon? so WHY????

Why not just make android better, fix the issues that people have with the UI, make it more user friendly, but don't introduce another linux flavor. It really helps noone but intel if even them

Atom is x86 legacy.... and power-hundry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519839)

To intel: What is the point of having inefficient Atoms chips compared to RISC (like ARM's or Intel's own)?
On the contrary it is my great hope that through the smartphone revolution we'll gradually switch to ARM-like RISC chips and hopefully one day on the servers as well.
This will save many percents of power consumption when we get rid of the x86 legacy ! And a few kilotons of CO2....

Wot's in a name? (1)

kaffekaine (1526977) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521767)

Moblin will likely fail because, it's a goofy name, the market doesn't want yet another OS, and Apple seems to be the only company in the entire gizmoverse that can make a decent UI.

At least Android has some street cred for being "Google".

Re:Wot's in a name? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29525215)

Moblin will fail because Intel has decided to let Microsoft own the user experience with Silverlight. Silverlight on Moblin. This one's over before it started.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...