What are the chances we'll see the new Ubuntu for phones os running on our hardware anytime soon?
As far as I understand it it should be just a matter of compiling for our specific soc, making a flashable rom and then flashing, right? They say it can run on android kernels so there shouldn't have to be any hardware interface work that needs to be done, right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
rangercaptain said:
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would enable us an alternative operating system choice, allowing application developers to create processor native applications (rather than using a java virtual machine that's quite resource intensive than running apps on the bare metal) thus using less system resources, enabling faster multitasking, greater compatibility with preexisting applications, enhanced security, and the desktop mode that they are touting is quite nice as well. connect an hdmi dongle and use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to turn the phone into a desktop computer... there are lots of uses for a bare metal operating system on a hardware platform with restrictive system resources.
there's really nothing wrong with android per se, she's a great OS, but there are a wide number of other approaches to building os's and user experiences. I would consider this pretty similar to choosing to install ubuntu on a PC, or windows on a mac for that matter. it's a matter of widening the variety of application approaches and compatibility. a matter of choice.
I really want to know if this is possible after seeing the demo of it on engadget this morning I'm convinced that this is one os I'd be willing to flash and possibly leave on over android, as amazing as Android is this just better though out in terms of where everything is and speed of access
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
gregsarg said:
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fact of the matter is that it's already running on the quintessential android test bed for the current generation of phones (the galaxy nexus) which means that it should be very easily ported to other, similar hardware (which is most of the android devices out there right now.). if they made this completely open source (which i'm pretty sure they'd have to given that most of the components of the OS are built on open-source licenses), and allowed the already very good and very diverse linux community expand it's functionality, write good apps for it, I think it has some pretty great promise.
my personal standpoint however, is that operating systems for mobile should work exactly like they do for PC's (and macs for that matter). you should be able to install whatever, whenever, without the approval of the company that happens to make the hardware, and without the approval of the company who provides the data and telephone services for the device... it's a pocket computer, not a dumb phone designed for one thing.
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Ubuntu won't be released til 2014, will older phones like our note1 be supported?
Keep in mind that by 2014 the note1 would be considered old in mobile years.
rangercaptain said:
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hardware drivers always run on the bare metal anyway (usually as part of the kernel, or occasionally as a background daemon service). the point is that android applications are built on top of the java environment which is a virtual machine - it's processes are abstracted and emulated which requires much more system resources than writing in something like c++ for the underlaying hardware. the only compatibility that this would break is that binaries don't work across cpu platforms. if something is compiled for the arm9 architecture for example (what most modern smartphones use, including our note), it wouldn't run on android for x86 or another java virtual machine like bluestacks. in order to get it to run on a different hardware platform you'd either have to emulate a complete device (like the iphone and android sdk simulators), or recompile it for the platform you want to run it on (only useful if you have the source code). the latter method is how linux distributions have been doing things for years. there are virtually identical linux distributions that can run on intel, arm, powerpc, sparc, motorola 68k, etc. etc. they can all run pretty much the same applications (because of the hardware abstraction layer present in the kernel), but in order for it to work, those applications must be recompiled for the appropriate underlaying processor architecture, as the output of a c(++,#) compiler is code that is cpu architecture specific.
also, windows 2000 and windows 7 were designed for the same (or similar) underlaying hardware problems. windows 2000 to windows 7 was mostly a piece of cake. whereas the move from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows 98 to windows xp was difficult because windows 9x and windows 2000/xp use a different variety of hardware abstraction layer and thus different drivers must be written as drivers designed for one HAL won't work with another. (same thing for major linux revisions. the HAL in the 2.4 series of kernels is different from the one in 2.6 series of kernels which means one has to rewrite device drivers in order to get some less-than-standard hardware working.
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
gregsarg said:
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, If i had access to the sources (that by all rights should be open thanks to the way the gpl is designed), I'd be happy to build a rom and help with the development efforts. I'm pretty decent at optimizing linux distributions for arm hardware. we should all petition canonical to release the code post haste.
I would love to see ubuntu ported over to phones. I almost fell off my chair when I heard of the idea that your phone could just connect to a monitor/keyboard/mouse to become a fully fledged desktop computer. This would literally replace almost all of my gadgets into one device. I wouldn't need a laptop, an ipod, a dvd player, or even a gaming console possibly as well.
I've been using ubuntu for a number of years and would be overjoyed to see almost all of my electronics and computing essentially made into one pocket sized device. The possibilities are so great for this kind of leap in technology and it almost seems to be the inevitable succession in personal computer technology. This could possibly be the beginning of the end for laptops, desktops, tablets, and netbooks/ultrabooks. All data would be transmitted using flash memory or transmitted OTA instead of spinning disks or other media.
If the source code is released, and I'm sure it will since Canonical has done a decent job of running Ubuntu lately, I hope someone brings it to the i717 because then I would probably sell a lot of electronic equipment
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
gregsarg said:
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too true, it's all about the money in the end, even with free stuff.
Now that you mention it, it does sound a lot like some sort of Apple type ploy to get you to buy their things... either way I hope it happens someday
Related
Recently ive been wondering why android is so different compared to windows?
I mean, although android 2.2, 2.3, (2.4) is out and running, only a small percentage of the phones actually got the upgrade, and most of em are still running 2.1 or lower for the time being, so what is the point in having a new firmware available if you cant run it on your phone anyway ?
Android is just a firmware right ? So why cant it be like windows, when there is a new version, no matter what specs or brand of PC, you just install and your up and running... And phones are just like small computers right ?
So why doenst google make android just as compatible as windows, and as soon as a new version comes out, we just install it and were good to go ? I know this is sort or less the whole point of it being open source, but there has to be a solution to this.
This would actually make so much more sense than it is right now! I know all phone-brands want to add there personal touch to there android phones like SE did with timescape and mediascape etc, but its all just based on the same firmware right ? So why cant these things like timescape and mediascape be seen like an update ? rather than fully integrated in the firmware ?
In my opinion, phone brands should go back to what they are actually good at.. manufacturing phones, and google should go back to what they are good at, designing new android versions, this shouldn't be the other way around.
Could one of you pls explain this to me ?
As a master student in economics, IF android could actually be compared like windows as I just explained, this would only have positive effects on the android/phone market, instead of all these angry and disappointed customers...
http://gizmodo.com/5733556/the-complete-state-of-android-froyo-upgrades
this threat is what made me write this, it is clear we are not the only ones stuck with 2.1 (but the gods at XDA are doing their best to fix this!)
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
unknown13x said:
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Android is at the same development stage as windows when it was win.dos, effectively; the future development was not foreseen. The aggressive marketing by ms changed that, obviously, but pcs from that era are hopelessly outdated. Mobile manufacturers are keeping up with Google rather than being dictated to by them. Eventually, a physical threshold will result in Android updates being software instead of hardware.
I think...
Sent from my X10i using XDA App
android is a fairly new n young operating system... its hardly 2 yrs old....
give it time... the way its goin now it headed in the right direction (same as windows)... compatibility issues will be sorted as time progresses... bare in mind that android devices span vast array of price ranges (and thus diff hardware as suited for that price) so compatibility will be an issue which will be sorted out in time...
clintax said:
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is there's too many architecture to go for. A universal architecture means we're eliminating many companies. For example, say we choose snapdragon as our universal. That means ARM, NVIDIA, will all be taken out the competition. Of course ARM cannot build a microcontroller based on snapdragon's design either, this is due to licensing and such. I'm sure manufacturer wants something like you said, it will be much easier to manage, but chip makers are doing things their own way. Also, you have to consider how much new technology is being introduced to phones in just one year. It is massive. Even if phones have the same architecture, the problem that comes about is the memory size to store all the drivers. Either way, it will have to go through the manufacturer to strip it out, which would be back to where we start again. So it will not work out anytime soon...However I did heard Google is aiming to make a flexible Android where it can do something like you said, but looking at the hardware change, it's impossible for now
FWIW - I think that it's more to do with USP's - Each manufacturer could, quickly and fairly easily just bung stock android onto their hardware, and therefore make it extremely easy for us all to upgrade to the latest OS.. but they think.. "hang on, if we do that then all the phones will look and work in the same way.. why would anyone want to buy ours, over xxx competitors phone... no that simply won't do.. we must make our phones special, different and more appealing to XYXY subset of the market... that way we'll sell more phones than our competitors and eventually.. if we're lucky, we might just compete with Apple"..
Or something along those lines!
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
k1sr said:
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking the same way! Windows? Nah! Windows itself is a bloatware OS...
Deleted...
I know this is an idiot question.
But I want to fire a subject to let people think about!
It would be good if we can experience this marvelous OS on this cheap device
Possible, but considering the fact that WM is a proprietary OS, porting it to something it wasn't meant for is extremely hard, but I think is still possible.
Windows 7 is not an open operating system. So there will never be a port. And even if it would be possible, there would be still missing hardware drivers...
Well, even if they could, why would someone try to port WM7 when we've got Android, which is pretty damn awesome with almost no restrictions...?
reminds me of porting android to the kaiser, but with far more problems...
if there were a wp7 device with similar specs it could be made possible.
but, as the previous post says, what's the point?
android for kaiser was a good-ish idea, as wm6 is... well... wm6.
well. just have a look at HD2
My colleague has just put DarkForceTeam WP7 Rom to HD2, I found it was really wonderful.
If we can do something like this to our P500, that would be marvelous. We have a big chance to enjoy an absolutely new OS on our cheap cellphone.
I still hope and thank to some developers who can do this.
I don't see any reason, why somebody should port this bad os to the optimus one.
Sorry for WP7 bashing
domenic_s said:
I don't see any reason, why somebody should port this bad os to the optimus one.
Sorry for WP7 bashing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if for some reason there's a WP7 rom for the O1, and that it doesn't have the touchscreen lag bug. Would you switch?
Still don't think i would do that, doubt WP7 will be as successful as Android.
herohut said:
well. just have a look at HD2
My colleague has just put DarkForceTeam WP7 Rom to HD2, I found it was really wonderful.
If we can do something like this to our P500, that would be marvelous. We have a big chance to enjoy an absolutely new OS on our cheap cellphone.
I still hope and thank to some developers who can do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And so.......Exactly WHEN Android became a "non New OS" ??
Someone thinks that Android is the BEST OS for smartphone..............
Other people thinks that iOS is the BEST OS for smartphone............
BUT all thinks that Microsoft Mobile (6.5 - 7) is the WORST OS for smartphone.........
the_best_hacker said:
And so.......Exactly WHEN Android became a "non New OS" ??
BUT all thinks that Microsoft Mobile (6.5 - 7) is the WORST OS for smartphone.........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was there anyone who said this idiot thing 3-4 years ago?
If there is a new thing born, idiot people will have a new chance to compare with the previous ones.
If you first look at the home screen of an iOS, an Android, a Bada OS, Windows Mobile menu: ohhhhh, icons, icons and icons, yes they are almost similar, even in more details. From years to years, they are still almost similar. And if you first look at a Windows Phone 7 phone: ohhhhh different, you can realize the difference even if you don't like that style.
If you research more and learn about the technical things, you will find that the collection of these OS are all based on Linux. Windows Phone 7 is absolutely new architecture which is built by user experiences of Microsoft in years.
BUT don't put the idiot words on Windows Phone 7 if you haven't touched it even just once.
My personal idea: use Windows Phone 7: professional OS
@herohut:
I see your profile picture is the XAML logo, which means you are probably a fan of Microsoft. I myself like to use WPF, .NET, C# and Microsoft technologies, and I'll explain why.
It's not about the look of Windows 7 or MSN. Microsoft deserves respect. If you look back into history, or even now in Wikipedia, you will see that there are two families of operating systems - UNIX and Windows. UNIX once included the true UNIX, but now almost all of UNIX operating systems are based on Linux; some on BSD; some on Solaris; and off course Apple's Mac OS and iOS. The core difference between Windows-based and UNIX-like operating systems is that ALMOST all (not all) of the UNIX-like operating systems are open-source.
Off course, it is not bad for a software to be open-source, but the main problem is that almost every developer makes his own variation of the software, resulting in instability. There is no way to proove it, but everybody here should agree with it.
On the other hand, Microsoft is a developer of proprietary software, which is not only stable, but rich-featured and customizable. It is not a secret that most of Windows, Office, Visual Studio and other Microsoft products can be programatically controlled, yet closed-source. Microsoft is the developer of high-end costumer software, which means the software requirments often fulfill the quality of the software.
Linux and most UNIX-like operating systems are intended for use in either weak machines, or on supercomputers. It is also known that Windows 7 can use maximum 192 GB RAM (Which is sad for supercomputers). As a very minimalistic and customizable kernel, Linux can be tweaked to work even on a piece of wood.
So for a customer use OS, I say Windows.
As for base-level modifications, advanced features and supercomputer usage, I say Linux.
EDIT: To be on-topic:
Microsoft says it is good to have a 1GHz processor to run Windows Phone. From personal experience I can tell that it is better to buy a phone with a 1GHz processor than to modify Windows Phone to run on Optimus One. The reason is simple - preformance.
So, if you want Windows on your Optimus One, simply make a Windows Mobile 6.5/6.5.1 firmware.
And if you want to develop with familiar to you techologies, simply visit monodroid.net
Very well spoken ianis.. I will have to agree with this Guy.
And I will say at very least run 1gb for optimistic to run a wp7 port..
But im content with what I have been given for the dollars I paid.
carry on...
Astroturf?
You can off course theme the Optimus One to look like Windows Phone, but I have noticed lately that most "visual themes" are just a piece of ...err...trash.
While I was waiting for Windows 7 to come out, I decided to theme a XP machine to look like 7, just for fun.
When I searched "XP themes", I noticed that more than 95% of the results were: XP theme for ME, Vista theme for XP and 7 theme for Vista. I asked myself "Why?". There wasn't any difference. The same themes from page to page. All people just wanted to make their old OS look newer, probably without even knowing that it is possible to upgrade Windows. I noticed the same thing around here: many newbies requested a Gingerbread theme. Not even the music equalizer. I felt somehow...strange seeing people mad for a new look of their battery/WiFi icon. And not just a new look. The SAME as Gingerbread's.
I don't even believe that these people know what a system process is. And they don't care for it. They are all ready to pay money for a Gingerbread theme!
Sorry, I've gone slightly mad, but I now I feel somehow relaxed after sharing my opinion.
Ianis G. Vasilev said:
@herohut:
I see your profile picture is the XAML logo, which means you are probably a fan of Microsoft. I myself like to use WPF, .NET, C# and Microsoft technologies, and I'll explain why.
It's not about the look of Windows 7 or MSN. Microsoft deserves respect. If you look back into history, or even now in Wikipedia, you will see that there are two families of operating systems - UNIX and Windows. UNIX once included the true UNIX, but now almost all of UNIX operating systems are based on Linux; some on BSD; some on Solaris; and off course Apple's Mac OS and iOS. The core difference between Windows-based and UNIX-like operating systems is that ALMOST all (not all) of the UNIX-like operating systems are open-source.
Off course, it is not bad for a software to be open-source, but the main problem is that almost every developer makes his own variation of the software, resulting in instability. There is no way to proove it, but everybody here should agree with it.
On the other hand, Microsoft is a developer of proprietary software, which is not only stable, but rich-featured and customizable. It is not a secret that most of Windows, Office, Visual Studio and other Microsoft products can be programatically controlled, yet closed-source. Microsoft is the developer of high-end costumer software, which means the software requirments often fulfill the quality of the software.
Linux and most UNIX-like operating systems are intended for use in either weak machines, or on supercomputers. It is also known that Windows 7 can use maximum 192 GB RAM (Which is sad for supercomputers). As a very minimalistic and customizable kernel, Linux can be tweaked to work even on a piece of wood.
So for a customer use OS, I say Windows.
As for base-level modifications, advanced features and supercomputer usage, I say Linux.
EDIT: To be on-topic:
Microsoft says it is good to have a 1GHz processor to run Windows Phone. From personal experience I can tell that it is better to buy a phone with a 1GHz processor than to modify Windows Phone to run on Optimus One. The reason is simple - preformance.
So, if you want Windows on your Optimus One, simply make a Windows Mobile 6.5/6.5.1 firmware.
And if you want to develop with familiar to you techologies, simply visit monodroid.net
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am absolutely agreed with this guy and thank you for your good idea.
I have certainly known the requirements that Microsoft forced hardware manufactures to follow: these are the standard to obtain 100% performance of WP7
But there's one thing to remark: Windows Phone 7 is not as heavy as it is thought to be. 1GHz CPU mades WP7 running very fast (as in HD2), i feel that if we have WP7 running on OptimusOne at 60% performance of WP7 standard (40% slower) [600MHz/1GHz * 100% = 60%], it will be still fast enough for us to enjoy WP7. Just see how much slower the OptimusOne runs in comparison to other Android smartphones with 1GHz.
And yes, I am a fan of Microsoft software technologies, especially the thing on my avatar, it is extremely faster to write something that runs on WP7 than in other OS
I'm currently trying to MOD HD2's Windows Phone MOD
(It's fun MODing MODs...)
Hey! I'm trying to play with HD2 WP7 DarkForces Team ROM, too. But I am just a beginner in this MOD world, trying to find out if it is possible to run WP7 on my Optimus One.
Invoke me if you need someone to mod together.
WP7 wonderful os? LOL
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
Incompatible processor...not only the cycles per second, but the instructions. WP7 requires an ARM7 processor with extentions. To run it on an ARM6 Cortex there are two ways:
Hypervisor virtualization - should be very complex;
Decompile the WP7 binary and recompile it with all stock drivers remastered. Sounds harder but is probably easier.
Any help will be accepted.
Hellooo~!
I'm a tad new to the world of Android Development, but have plenty of programming history. I'm going to be starting a project to get Arch Linux running on my Photon 4G, and am contemplating making this public. My end goal is to get it working on the Photon, with a working on-screen keyboard, decent battery life, and lapdock/HDMI/peripheral support.
If you're a bit skeptical, know that there is a distribution of Arch Linux that supports ARMv5-v7 processors.
So before I begin my journey, I want to know:
Is anyone interested in this?
Sounds interesting. It appears you may be doing something different than the typical chroot method? As an Archlinux desktop user, a phone version would be cool.
Best of luck with your project. If you need testers, I would be willing to try to help.
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
jahildebra said:
Hellooo~!
I'm a tad new to the world of Android Development, but have plenty of programming history. I'm going to be starting a project to get Arch Linux running on my Photon 4G, and am contemplating making this public. My end goal is to get it working on the Photon, with a working on-screen keyboard, decent battery life, and lapdock/HDMI/peripheral support.
If you're a bit skeptical, know that there is a distribution of Arch Linux that supports ARMv5-v7 processors.
So before I begin my journey, I want to know:
Is anyone interested in this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mighty ambitious! Im definitely interested in this. Arch is one of my favorite distributions. I'm concerned about the usability of it though. What desktop environment would you aim to use? Are there any that I'm unaware of that that are geared toward mobile phones?
jbaumert said:
Sounds interesting. It appears you may be doing something different than the typical chroot method? As an Archlinux desktop user, a phone version would be cool.
Best of luck with your project. If you need testers, I would be willing to try to help.
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to see you're interested!
As far as getting Arch on the phone, I want to the phone to boot straight into the Arch environment without the Android system in the background. This may not be possible due to the phones bootloader, but if anything I'll have an extremely minimal version of Android acting as a crutch for Arch, helping it to boot up and perform other operations. The system should be 90% Arch Linux.
Please don't take this the wrong way but as long as it has nothing to do with the current chroot/VNC method I'm all for it. The chroot method lacks access to the phone's hardware so things like audio, USB host don't work.
If chroot/VNC is what you are trying to avoid then you may want to look at Gentop2 and kholk's original Gentop project. This should give you an idea as to how they achieved framebuffer and hardware access. If you want to provide support for Tegra2 Moto's you'll need to keep the install below 755MB for Atrix support unless a webtop2sd type method will be used.
Another thing you may want to consider is that the upcoming ICS update and AOSP lack the needed framebuffer/HW access. You may need to hack and kang a far bit to get ICS and AOSP support.
Acvice said:
Mighty ambitious! Im definitely interested in this. Arch is one of my favorite distributions. I'm concerned about the usability of it though. What desktop environment would you aim to use? Are there any that I'm unaware of that that are geared toward mobile phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahah, I was just thinking about that myself. As per my knowledge, there are ZERO DE's geared towards phones. We could come pretty close to the mobile-phone experience using a tablet/netbook-oriented DE, similar to Unity. Unity is capable of running on Arch, but I don't know if it's ARM compatible, or how smoothly it would run on a small processor like the Tegra 2. If anything I could just configure an Xmonad environment that runs entirely off of mouse/touch gestures.
jahildebra said:
Hahah, I was just thinking about that myself. As per my knowledge, there are ZERO DE's geared towards phones. We could come pretty close to the mobile-phone experience using a tablet/netbook-oriented DE, similar to Unity. Unity is capable of running on Arch, but I don't know if it's ARM compatible, or how smoothly it would run on a small processor like the Tegra 2. If anything I could just configure an Xmonad environment that runs entirely off of mouse/touch gestures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unity can run on ARM and is pretty but fairly resource heavy. Canonical has Ubuntu 12 running on an Atrix2 but have no intention of releasing source at this time. I would suggest staying with a lightweight "Unity like" enviro. This will free up resources for other things.
Might I suggest OpenBox? Extremely lightweight and easily configurable to suit the needs of a small screen. Desktops and windows are easily manageable from a single bottom bar, all application categories pop up in a menu when taping on any part of the 'desktop', all with gradients and transparency as needed so to still be slick looking. My mental imagine of the setup would be similar to that of Webos and easily achievable and user friendly. A particular distribution that i've been using for a while whom has really made the flexibility of Openbox shine is Crunchbang. The dude who runs the distro has developed many little GUI utilities that are made to configure Openboxs' script-based setup. So if you decided to use it, a lot of work is already done so to speak. Check it out and see if you get any inspiration!
Acvice said:
Might I suggest OpenBox? Extremely lightweight and easily configurable to suit the needs of a small screen. Desktops and windows are easily manageable from a single bottom bar, all application categories pop up in a menu when taping on any part of the 'desktop', all with gradients and transparency as needed so to still be slick looking. My mental imagine of the setup would be similar to that of Webos and easily achievable and user friendly. A particular distribution that i've been using for a while whom has really made the flexibility of Openbox shine is Crunchbang. The dude who runs the distro has developed many little GUI utilities that are made to configure Openboxs' script-based setup. So if you decided to use it, a lot of work is already done so to speak. Check it out and see if you get any inspiration!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the suggestion! I've never used OpenBox before, but I've heard its customizability is similar to Xmonad's.
I'll check it out!
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
What's your intended target user base? Will it Linux n00b, average linux user or linux power user?
Lokifish Marz said:
What's your intended target user base? Will it Linux n00b, average linux user or linux power user?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mainly average/power users. Arch Linux is definitely not for the weak hearted.
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
Lokifish Marz said:
What's your intended target user base? Will it Linux n00b, average linux user or linux power user?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, generally speaking, Arch is most certainly not for Linux noobs
::edit::
Haha, totally didnt see there was a page 2. Jahildebra already said it.
The reason I asked is that I agree that Arch "out of the box" is more "power user" than say Ubuntu Desktop but not much more so than most server distros. It would really depend on what extras are put in. Arch running Gnome with all the bells and whistles could be very n00b friendly if set up with them in mind. Then again my perspective may be a little off as I still remember Mandrake coming on floppies with only a command line installer.
Lokifish Marz said:
The reason I asked is that I agree that Arch "out of the box" is more "power user" than say Ubuntu Desktop but not much more so than most server distros. It would really depend on what extras are put in. Arch running Gnome with all the bells and whistles could be very n00b friendly if set up with them in mind. Then again my perspective may be a little off as I still remember Mandrake coming on floppies with only a command line installer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah I get what you're sayin. As long as you hook people up with multimedia codecs, a good package manager, and some necessary apps i think even noobs would be happy. And I havnt heard anyone mention Mandrake in many years since Mandriva. I popped into the linux scene around Ubuntus dapper drake release. Ever since Ive ran debian.
Well, it seems like there's interest aplenty.
I'll be starting the project as soon as possible.
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
More interest will arrive when some solid progress is made im sure. I do have a question though.. Im a little unsure of how you plan to get sms, mms, data and such working on this. Or maybe i missed the point entirely. Is it not meant to be a fully functional replacement of android?
Acvice said:
More interest will arrive when some solid progress is made im sure. I do have a question though.. Im a little unsure of how you plan to get sms, mms, data and such working on this. Or maybe i missed the point entirely. Is it not meant to be a fully functional replacement of android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That will be one of the biggest challenges, alongside getting Arch to boot initially and having the phone be usable even without a physical keyboard. I plan to at least have 3G working, but I don't quite know how that will play out. None of the devices Arch Linux ARM has a release for have a 3G radio in the first place, so we have no examples to follow, and we'll have to figure this out on our own.
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
What utility does Ubuntu and other desktop distro's use to accept usb tethering from any android phone? I'm guessing netcfg (it's all I know in that department) is the norm, if so there may be a way to point it at the radio internally and then play around with settings for data and possibly calls. Webtop may still be running acual Android but it still has configuration files just like everything else in linux. We should be able to figure this out over time.
Interested? Not as such... More like curious.
I'm new to Linux and have never really been able to gain a foothold. I'm still kicking myself for building a gaming PC and thus tying myself to Windows. With Steam announcing support for Linux... If Bethesda joins them and support for the Fallout games and Skyrim comes to Linux... bye bye Windows. But for now Ubuntu 12.04 doesn't like my computer. And Arch isn't Ubuntu, but I'm willing to learn.
Would this support the phone parts? I understand that Arch has ARM builds, and they support a Tegra 2 device very similar to the Photon/Electrify, but that device doesn't have a CDMA radio in it, and possibly other components. Does it have Bluetooth? In any case, you'd need drivers for the hardware specifically in the Photon/Electrify, and Motorola hasn't been very forthcoming with community support.
As for keyboards, anyone in America at least can get a physical keyboard for $16. Newegg has a mini keyboard like an iMac's for $15 shipped, and Amazon has a USB OTG cable for under a buck. The two won't work for me on my phone under a couple CM10 ROMs, though. I read for drives it's a matter of power, but a keyboard shouldn't draw any (surely the 100mA the phone puts out over the micro USB should be enough for the caps/num/scroll lock LEDs). But the software on the phone has to support a keyboard that way; I don't know that Android knows to expect input that way.
I suppose the main reason why the Android OS is so poorly distributed is because there is nearly limitless hardware configurations and such. So why not create another layer that abstracts the hardware? Every manufacturer would be responsible for getting their virtual machine to support their hardware, and it would be pretty much a one time thing. From then on, Android would just be on top of that, ignorant of how to handle the real differences in hardware. This way, all devices could get the latest OS updates instantly, and even the oldest of phones would still be supported.
I guess you could argue that a VM would take up a lot of resources, but it doesn't really. And hardware today is excessively powerful to the point where people can't even tell the difference between a phone that benchmarks 30k vs 60k.
Or maybe this is a dumb idea. I did study computer engineering but am unemployed so there's that.
Is it Linux or Mac os
Lavithiran -=-=-= said:
Is it Linux or Mac os
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I prefer Ubuntu Linux
ok a good choise
Lavithiran -=-=-= said:
ok a good choise
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no exact replacement for or better than Microsoft Windows. Whether any alternative will work for you depends on how the other OS characteristics compare to your needs.
The most commonly considered alternatives include Apple’s OS X on Macs, Linux, Fedora, Red Hat and the Google Chrome operating systems. They do each have significant pitfalls, depending on what you are expecting.
There is no one size fits all approach when it comes to comparison(s).
i use arch btw (joke)
raspbian
There aren't better OS. Most important is what software run on your selected OS. Or is there alternative to your required software? And at least is it easy to setup, configure or to do non basic thing. I know many linux users who representing slef like "linux expert", when I ask to configure some non standard things usual this ends I don't have a time, read forum etc.
Nettwerk said:
There aren't better OS. Most important is what software run on your selected OS. Or is there alternative to your required software? And at least is it easy to setup, configure or to do non basic thing. I know many linux users who representing slef like "linux expert", when I ask to configure some non standard things usual this ends I don't have a time, read forum etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, there's USUALLY an os that has advantages over the other one for everyone's use cases.
macos vs linux is sorta where id say linux is basically equal to it, if not beating it in some departments (unless you're balls deep into the apple ecosystem or you like the look of mac hardware).
same goes for android vs ios, although people get pretty heated about that one, ios (hot take) has.. no real advantages? sure, its got the ecosystem, but thats pretty much it. your locked into one version, no custom roms. their "security and privacy" arguments dont make much sense when you realize the entire internet runs on open source, and the very foundation we are running on would crumble if it werent for open source technologies. yes sure, stock roms like touchwiz, miui, even one ui are probably not as secure as could be (although oneui is actually pretty decent, and comparable to ios in security), but if your willing to tinker a little bit, an android is going to excel in privacy and security (pixel + grapheneos).
windows vs other oses is where i cant really compare, because even tho windows is pretty much a sh*t show at this point, it still has all the software one could ever need, being compatible with much older software too (although thats sorta hit or miss, especially since older hardware is being phased out with windows 11).
linux outclasses windows in terms of features and such, but for the near future at least, it still wont beat windows in terms of software support, it just doesnt have that kind of foothold, and developers arent as familiar with it too.
i hate microsoft's monopoly as much as the next guy, but they're here to stay, so you might aswell keep buying microsoft windows for the forseeable future, since their monopoly is going no where.
in summary: some oses (mac vs linux, ios vs android) have pretty clear winners, but some others (like windows vs linux) arent as clear and DO actually come down to personal preference, not just "ive sunk [obsurd amount of money] into [fruit-company-that-shall-not-be-named] so im not switching to brokeOS"
RDS5 said:
ios (hot take) has.. no real advantages? sure, its got the ecosystem, but thats pretty much it. your locked into one version, no custom roms. their "security and privacy" arguments dont make much sense when you realize the entire internet runs on open source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
The best OS is the one that suits most or all of your needs.
If you want an OS that just works out of the box and is compatible with almost everything, Windows
If you want an OS that is more locked down, but secure and works with most things, iOS
If you are more tech-savvy and want an OS that you can have complete control over, including how it looks and is very secure, lightweight and fast, Linux, and even then, there are many different Linux variants.
but for making roms which is good
RDS5 said:
i use arch btw (joke)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You must be an exeptional professional, i use anARCHy, btw
HipKat said:
The best OS is the one that suits most or all of your needs.
If you want an OS that just works out of the box and is compatible with almost everything, Windows
If you want an OS that is more locked down, but secure and works with most things, iOS
If you are more tech-savvy and want an OS that you can have complete control over, including how it looks and is very secure, lightweight and fast, Linux, and even then, there are many different Linux variants.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi!
You are right when you say Windows "is compatible with almost everything", have huge virus library to choose from, no privacy, you have no control over it... can't even disable or turn off updates, not to mention his own "antivirus". If read the EUA you weaver the right to take Microsoft to a Court of Law.
On the other hand you have Linux you have the right to choose what OS you want to install and works out of the box and yet you don't have to be a "tech-savvy" to install or use linux and you can eve run windows software (not all) on linux.
I've been using Linux Ubuntu as a daily driver since 2019 and switch to Mint in 2020 and still have Windows 10 and 11 Installed.
I don't have many of my windows software, but found a lot of replacements, play games native to linux, others with Wine and i am happy with my choice.
With everything that is new there is a learning curve with Linux or Windows and i am not like some people that force any OS down the throat or say "that problem with Linux is that exist to many versions", i say i am free to choose as i am free to choose my girlfriend, my wife, my car, phone, computer.
Microsoft chooses for you is Windows 11 or 11 because in 2025 there are no more updates.
Since 2007 i downloaded many Linux ISO and stick with Ubuntu (Debian) and then Mint (Debian), both big community. I even downloaded Arch didn't how manually install, it's for power users, installed centOS not didn't like it.
There are no wrong or right choices when it comes to Linux, its a question find the right one and sticking to it.
Thank you.
spezialzt said:
You must be an exeptional professional, i use anARCHy, btw
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me as well, but I use Arcolinux
Rah-Rah80 said:
Hi!
You are right when you say Windows "is compatible with almost everything", have huge virus library to choose from, no privacy, you have no control over it... can't even disable or turn off updates, not to mention his own "antivirus". If read the EUA you weaver the right to take Microsoft to a Court of Law.
On the other hand you have Linux you have the right to choose what OS you want to install and works out of the box and yet you don't have to be a "tech-savvy" to install or use linux and you can eve run windows software (not all) on linux.
I've been using Linux Ubuntu as a daily driver since 2019 and switch to Mint in 2020 and still have Windows 10 and 11 Installed.
I don't have many of my windows software, but found a lot of replacements, play games native to linux, others with Wine and i am happy with my choice.
With everything that is new there is a learning curve with Linux or Windows and i am not like some people that force any OS down the throat or say "that problem with Linux is that exist to many versions", i say i am free to choose as i am free to choose my girlfriend, my wife, my car, phone, computer.
Microsoft chooses for you is Windows 11 or 11 because in 2025 there are no more updates.
Since 2007 i downloaded many Linux ISO and stick with Ubuntu (Debian) and then Mint (Debian), both big community. I even downloaded Arch didn't how manually install, it's for power users, installed centOS not didn't like it.
There are no wrong or right choices when it comes to Linux, its a question find the right one and sticking to it.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are preaching to the choir my friend. I have not used Windows in a long time. Everyone doing boats with different distro‘s on and off for about 10 years but never made the commitment to go full-time Linux until last year.
Sometimes I have to reboot into windows for updates that are companies specific and are not available on my Linux distro, But those rate times I’m in and out and I feel dirty while I’m there. I ran Manjaro for over a year now I am, as I posted above fully running Arco.
Totally different than Manjaro which to me was starting to become the Arch version of Ubuntu.
Even games, ones I played at Windows, most of them I can run on Arch.
TBH, I know that people that use Arch are to Linux users like Linux users are to Windows users. Or iOS users to android users. Clicky fanboys lol but really, it’s just better. And if you don’t want to change desktop environments, it runs good gnome very well.
BTW, all the various flavors of arch come with Calamaras installers now. Even pure arch which I just put on a test laptop has a graphical installer.
HipKat said:
You are preaching to the choir my friend. I have not used Windows in a long time. Everyone doing boats with different distro‘s on and off for about 10 years but never made the commitment to go full-time Linux until last year.
Sometimes I have to reboot into windows for updates that are companies specific and are not available on my Linux distro, But those rate times I’m in and out and I feel dirty while I’m there. I ran Manjaro for over a year now I am, as I posted above fully running Arco.
Totally different than Manjaro which to me was starting to become the Arch version of Ubuntu.
Even games, ones I played at Windows, most of them I can run on Arch.
TBH, I know that people that use Arch are to Linux users like Linux users are to Windows users. Or iOS users to android users. Clicky fanboys lol but really, it’s just better. And if you don’t want to change desktop environments, it runs good gnome very well.
BTW, all the various flavors of arch come with Calamaras installers now. Even pure arch which I just put on a test laptop has a graphical installer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello
I'm no preacher, my days defending Linux over Windows or vice-versa are long gone... over the years i learned that most people are dumb and don't care about anything as long it works.
Theses days i only talk about my experience about both OS, not iOS because i don't have a Mac nor have the intent to buy one. To closed for me.
With friends i talk about Linux and what he can do, if they to try i will help, if want to learn i will teach what i know and if i don't i still search for an answer online.
So far i only played old games on Mint (DOS/Windows) currently playing Diablo 3.
I can handle Mint so far, i heard good things about Manjaro, at the time the videos i saw on youtube, the theme didn't appealed to me, i may try it some day.
On my laptop i had Lubuntu for some years, now i have Peppermint 11, not bad.
Rah-Rah80 said:
Hello
I'm no preacher, my days defending Linux over Windows or vice-versa are long gone... over the years i learned that most people are dumb and don't care about anything as long it works.
Theses days i only talk about my experience about both OS, not iOS because i don't have a Mac nor have the intent to buy one. To closed for me.
With friends i talk about Linux and what he can do, if they to try i will help, if want to learn i will teach what i know and if i don't i still search for an answer online.
So far i only played old games on Mint (DOS/Windows) currently playing Diablo 3.
I can handle Mint so far, i heard good things about Manjaro, at the time the videos i saw on youtube, the theme didn't appealed to me, i may try it some day.
On my laptop i had Lubuntu for some years, now i have Peppermint 11, not bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Manjaro has many hundreds of free themes that are easy to install
HipKat said:
Manjaro has many hundreds of free themes that are easy to install
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello!
Maybe i'll have a go with Manjaro on my test computer.
Rah-Rah80 said:
Hello!
Maybe i'll have a go with Manjaro on my test computer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you do, I had the best experience with KDE
Lavithiran -=-=-= said:
but for making roms which is good
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ubuntu is good for building roms but any Linux distro should do the job.