Slashdot Mirror

But now we see the strategy of Canonical and why the (at the time) weird decisions were being made

Um duh, it was made for Instant-On web devices, it just so happens that tablets fall into that category nicely.

But let's look at each point individually because not everything you stated relates to Canonical's desire to go to Tablet's, it's more along the lines of, "it just happens to also help them out towards tablets."

1) The nasty split, isn't any more nasty than other things in the Linux world. Canonical wants Canonical stuff in Canonical's distro. GNOME 3 is still used in Unity, but just differently. It's hard for me to explain because I suck at summing things up, but trust me, Unity is GNOME 3 at the core and Unity runs more with how people predicted GNOME3 to be used more as a platform and less like a standard desktop. The main facet is that it removes a lot of upstream push from the GNOME community. Canonical wants their desktop to look the way they want it to look, not what GNOME developers want it to look like. You'll see this type of mentality in a lot of Ubuntu. Also, let's face it GNOME developers are difficult to work with at best. It's very easy to paint the main developers as being the pearly towers (metaphor for someone who dictates how things should happen, but have little to zero real-world experience to back up exactly why that's right.)

2) The choice to use Wayland over X boils down to the same debate that was had on xgl versus aiglx. Mark thinks running direct to the video card is a better method than the way X provides. This has been a common thing that comes up ooo, I'd say every five to six years. Someone comes up with a better way to run direct to the card and someone jumps on the band wagon. Usually there is just too much inertia to make the jump from X to the something else happen and we all go back to using X happily. There's a lot of misconception that Xorg (specifically) and X11 (in general) are bloated, slow, won't run well on older machines. X11 is a pretty hefty "standard," but not everything in it is in every implementation. There are multiple of X11 implementations (I'm given too, Google can help you see more) that target embedded systems that run quite well. Xorg implements a lot of stuff to keep backwards compatibility with older machines. Wayland doesn't. However, don't confuse that because just because it is implemented does not mean that it gets loaded if it is not needed. You aren't going to be using XRender when your video card offers the ability to use OpenGL pixmap to texture. The biggest problem with X is drivers (and that shouldn't surprise anyone) and the low quality those drivers exist in. That problem will not go away with Wayland. The idea is, and to me it's a bad bet, if we make the model more simple (remember the X11 "spec" is a pretty big tome) then vendors will be more incline to write better drivers since the model for those drivers is more simplistic. However, as bets go, that's immaterial to why Canonical wants to go Wayland. It really boils down to the fact that they want to do Window Decorations the way they want to do Window Decora

this guy, by chance? :-)

None of these are X11 alternatives on the level of SVGALIB or DirectFB, but a bit higher level. They require a low-level display medium like DirectFB, SDL, or X11 (but you can ignore that option for now).

Squeak Smalltalk: A cool Smalltalk environment. Based on Smalltalk-80, for which first modern WIMP was invented. Has a bunch of little apps, simple web browser, vt100 client, few email clients, web servers, a couple different GUI toolkits and programming paradigms to choose from. Personally, what I use mostly as my OS. I like having my entire environment available to me, to be changed as I like, in a very straightforward way. Rather like Emacs users, I suppose. Except Squeak is more customizable, and has full windowing system. Also can run as the OS, no Linux or X11. DirectFB, SDL, X11, Mac (9/X), Windows, Acorn, WinCE, BeOS and lots of other ports that all run the same binaries.

ETH Oberon: Implementation of the Oberon language - derived from Pascal and Modula, by Nick Wirth. Has it's own entire GUI system, like Squeak does. Can run as an OS, without Linux or X11. Also has a VNC client, so you could still run the X11 app or two that you still needed in a window. :)

PicoGUI: A really cool GUI system especially for PDAs and other embedded applications. Super fast. Bindings for C, Perl, and Python (I think). Linux FB and SDL ports, runs wherever they can. Not much in the way of apps thus far, but it's definitely alive and under pretty active development.

QT/Embedded: You know, like runs on the Zaurus.

GTK+ on Direct FB: Can't say I've used this, but I imagine bindings for regular GTK+ work in this port, which makes for a lot of development options.

MicroWindows/Nano-X: Yet enother embedded GUI option. It's developer seems to be pushing for PDA, set-tops and such. Not many apps, but could be useful especially for custom apps.

Are there any worthwhile just-Java windowing systems out there? There are al ot of Java-OS projects, but none of them seem to have gotten past linking Kaffee with OSKit...

Probably others out there, but this is a good look at some options.

Just compare http://www.linux4.tv and http://embedded.censoft.com/. Seems like the guys at Century Software are trying to get someone to program software for free so they can sell their set-top boxes later.

BTW, simliar projects have been around over here in Europe for quite a while - and those require no registration to download software and specs. Just have a look at http://dbox2.elxsi.de/ or http://www.cadsoft.de/people/kls/vdr/ ;-)

My company, Century Software, (shameless self plug), has been working for many months to bring Linux and the graphics engine Microwindows to the Ipaq platform (www.microwindows.org). Amid the kernel tweeking (thanks to the fine folks at www.handhelds.org, and basic graphics apps (load monitor, clock, keyboard, scribble, etc...), we have also tried to create some PIM apps (e-mail, etc...), and I have developed a few observations.

1) - Kernel work is sexy, designing PIM suites is not. A majority of the members of the open source community are willing to do kernel and driver work on their spare time, but precious few are willing to make a datebook without compensation.
2) - Thus, it falls more to companies that are able to pay engineers to work on PIM applications. However, these days engineers are expensive, and the companies are unwilling to pay an engineer 40 bucks an hour, and then turn around and give the suites away. Thats has nothing to do with open source or code sharing, thats just business.
3) - Because of this, the only other solution would be for the companies to try to sell the PIM suites (either on a royalty basis to corporations, or directly to the consumer). And then they come right up against Palm, Microsoft, and the other big giants that have more organized marketing networks and market share.

The solution? You got me! Many kudos and $$ to the company that figures it out first. Until then, at least I can still play Doom on my Ipaq!!!

The short answer is, yes. On the next release of the Century Software Ipaq distro (embedded.censoft.com), we will have IRChat, which allows two Ipaqs to chat and transfer files via the IR (thats being shown at Comdex right now).

And of course, since IRDA is standards based, it follows that the Ipaq will talk to all IRDA capable machines (printers, Palms, etc, etc...).

PS: Many kudos to the good folks at www.handhelds.org for their fine work on the IRDA stuff. Give yourselves a pat on the back, eh?

There's more info on Microwindows & ViewML here, including the obligatory /. screens hot .

Oh man, I've waited years to finally be an authority on a Slashdot article... wait a sec, let me bask in the glory..... Ok, I'm over it.

Here are some URLS for those who want to know more about Microwindows and the stuff running specifically on the Ipaq:

www.microwindows.org (Microwindows source and home page)
embedded.censoft.com (Century software home page)

We don't currently have a terminal emulator in our demo, but I do know that there is already GPL'd Java telnet applet available, which could theoretically be made to telnet to localhost, thus giving us the same capability on PocketLinux.

Check out Microwindows. If you need an interface for an application which may run on a Linux PDA, you are likely to use this little beauty. Plus anyone who thinks that X is awful should take note. By developing things using Microwindows you can get applications - today - that run under X and also can run with a far lighter windowing interface...

Cheers,
Ben

I think you will find more embedded systems devoplers going to X because is allow them to remotly display debugging back to the desktop.

microwindows has a client / server network transparent architecture, similar to X. it's a heck of a lot smaller than X, too.

there is also RTEMS, which is a real-time multiprocessor-supporting OS, if you ever want to ditch vxworks... (there is also ecos which looks interesting. but this is getting off topic.)

I can't speak for Qt, but GTK+ is not built on X. It's built on gdk, and GTK+ apps will run on any platform that gdk does. Yes, gdk was originally built on X, but it has since been ported to Win32 and BeOS, and work is underway porting it to Microwindows/Nano-X.

Link here.

This is being developed for the embedded market. OTOH it also has development environments running under X. Therefore anyone who wants can develop real applications to microwindows, and let people run it on whatever graphical system they want...

Cheers,
Ben

The correct URL for Microwindows should be http://microwindows.censoft.com/. I hit the submit button by mistake.

• Be based on a sophisticated imaging model with transparency and antialiasing
  
• Have fonts that didn't suck
  
• Be simple and small
  
• Have hooks for adding hardware acceleration
  
• Work with the realtime capabilities in the OS
  

Both share a common graphics engine. Nano-GUI is based on an X-like protocol called Nano-X. Microwindows sports an interface similar to the ECMA APIW spec with some advancements.

• Greg Haerr's Microwindows Page
• Alex Holden's NanoGUI Page

I don't know about Transmeta's mobile-linux, but I can see one significant advantage of using and embedded Linux (or even an embedded DOS): Microwindows.

It is a compact (100Kb) embeddable GUI which implements the bulk of both the Win32 and X11 APIs. That gives you a very simple port of any software from two environments. Why use WinCE, when you can recompile your apps and avoid the royalities?

I presume TM's Mobile Linux is using a cut-down Xfree86. It would be interesting to see how much of the 32Mb ROM they could free up by using a purpose-built embedded GUI. (I think Xfree86 is great, I'm just not convinced it is the optimal choice for embedded applications).

Yes, Linux does seem like a good choice. If you compare [Linux] with Windows CE, it is alot [sic] smaller and not as heavy on memory. (compare windows CE devices and Palm OS devices.)

Hmm. I like Linux as much as the next FreeBSD geek, but, frankly, no, you're wrong. (What follows uses the acronym CE in two different senses. CE means Consumer Electronics, in the EU sense; it also means Windows CE. I'll try to use CE device(s) for the former and Windows CE for the latter.)

(1) Linux is not small by the standards of CE devices. It's important to distinguish between kernel size (the Linux kernel is fairly small) and operating size (running Linux w/ X and Mozilla...that's not small, even by desktop standards, to say nothing of device standards.)

(2) The Windows CE-based systems you mention carry a vast amount of baggage. If you're comparing a Palm Pilot to a (say) Compaq Aero, you're comparing aples to oranges. The Aero not only contains Windows CE itself, it also contains GWES.EXE (CE's equivalent of X), SHELL.EXE (CE's equivalent of the WM), a handwriting recognizer, a soft input panel, and a lot of other software. There are Windows CE-based embedded systems that carry a lot less baggage; believe it or not, they're quite slim, trim, and stable.

A better comparison is to linuxce plus microwindows/NanoGUI. The linuxce guys are having a lot of trouble getting things to fit in the Windows CE palm-sized device format. They're having a good deal less trouble getting things to fit in the VR form factor. Frankly, that isn't surprising; X windows was really designed for a device with a keyboard and a lot of power. It isn't terribly well suited to a keyboardless, low-power device. If they're having trouble with microwindows, then true X will be even worse...and unstable to boot! Not a good user experience.

(3) And, finally, Linux still doesn't have a number of features that really are important for CE devices: things like quick on/off, recovery from unplugging, etc. I don't expect that those will be available in any context for quite a while.

Frankly, this sounds like marketing hype to me. M$ is releasing a new generation of their Palm-pilot class devices today at CES (or so cnet whould have us believe.) Intel is trying to snub them. The Wall-street journal reports that Intel is not even demoing devices, for heaven's sake, just talking about the plans?

Naah, this is vaporware and FUD, no more.

Linux has a chance to take the Palm/PDA world by storm if we can only get our collective butts in gear!

The following projects are critical and need our support -

Microwindows/Nanogui

uLinux

LinuxCE

flash memory drivers

And the existing Linux7k project.

Let's get the ball rolling!