Slashdot Mirror
Why Open Source Makes Sense For Handhelds
Guylhem writes "Are you still wondering why you should prefer an handheld running free software over one running Palm OS or Windows CE? Here's a short article to explain the main reasons you should consider.
The most important are sustainability and freedom: you don't want your applications to break when you update your handheld OS or hardware, and you certainly want to decide what *you* may do with your data. Palm and Pocket PC's DRM protected and obscure formats stand in your way. That's another good reason to prefer free software: you have the source code so you can develop plug ins to read such obscure formats. Even better - you can stick to standards formats such as divx which are poorly supported on handhelds running proprietary software." On the topic of handhelds, tanmay submits brighthand.com's small chart of some upcoming handhelds and smart phones that may be launched in the coming months.
...arguments that apply equally to handhelds and to full-sized computers. Why should it be any more important that you have the extra control/privacy that OSS provides on your portable than on any other computer?
This is slashdot...don't we all already think opensource is right for handhelds?
You're right - this is Slashdot, where we think open source is right for everything from servers through to electric can openers, from cellular phones to shoes.
Coming soon to Slashdot - the open source cravat.
I can hardly wait!
That's another good reason to prefer free software: you have the source code so you can develop plug ins to read such obscure formats.
Somehow I don't think that 99% of handheld users are developers (or at least develop software for handhelds). Whilst modification is a good reason to use open source for people like myself (who program for a living), it's probably the least compelling reason for most.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
You seem to forget the fact that PDA's are very open to development. There are Divx players for both Palm and PocketPCs. People have ported version's of GCC that run on the actual device. Open Source is one of the greatest achievements of PDAs, how do you think we got quake running on pocketpc's? You also seem to forget that if these closed source Operating Systems never existed, these PDA's would never exist either, You cant depend on Open Source nuts to develop an intuitive User Interface. Look at Mac OS X vs Linux. Yeah, both are just as powerful as each other, but Mac OS X's UI is light years ahead of any GUI for linux, and you know what, Aqua is a closed source GUI developed by a commercial company. For PDA's, The UI is even more important then the power of the OS, people want a UI that allows them to get their work done as efficiently as possible, they dont give a rat's ass if its open source or not. People wouldnt buy PDA's if they had clunky UI's, thankfully because of Palm, they managed to develop a GUI that is semi-decent, yet its not amazing yet. The good thing is though that these companies have money they can burn on R&D to develop the OS and make it more intuitive. Open Source is not the greatest thing for PDAs. Not to mention, there is a Linux port for some PocketPCs, and you know what? It sucks compared to Windows Mobile 2003, in every regard. Open Source this, Open Source that, you people forget why people actually use computers.
That's the worst table I've ever seen.
I can do what I want only with Palm and Windows. Linux is intriguing, but fails the tests of functionality and compatability.
No, I can't. I do not "code apps", "develop plug-ins", or otherwise design or build software. Nor do I "compile from source". I, like most of the market, am strictly a consumer.
If you would like to see OSS thrive, you do the work. I guarantee that you will get satisfaction. Double, in fact, because not only will your OSS thrive in a competitive market and reduce the power of CSS, but you and people like you will be able to earn a comfortable living along with a well-earned sense of pride.
Go for it. Just don't expect the Great Unwashed like me to be able to code along with you.That's great. If it does what you want.
Some people buy a new technology not knowing, yet, what they expect out of it. These are the inspired thinkers to come up with new uses. They are often disappointed with proprietary systems, finding that someone else is dictating the boundaries of use differently than they, such as draconian DRM. These people feel cheated.
Freedom of choice is always better, Dude (or Dudette).
I just bought the Sharp Zaurus SL-5600 and it kicks the snot out of my Palm Pilot. It's a few years newer but is still a better machine than the most recent Palms. And when I get the addons sneaked in past the lovely but untrusting Morticia, then I will have far more than had I upgraded the Palm.
Mine came from Amazon.com @ $300.00 - new in the box. This is the best techno trinket I've had years.
Original poster has to be a troll - or his significant other won't let him get the better toy and it's just sour grapes talking.
Too lazy to create a sig...
Likewise people used to say that OS/2 was a better platform than Windows
It is. Is windows used in ATM machines? Can you choose your filesystem on windows? (ntfs or fat32, which both suck) OS/2 offers real multithreading support. Ah but as you said
OS/2 was largely useless due to the lack of applications
So I guess windows 3.11 was useless because of it's lack of applications. OS/2 will run 16bit dos programs more solidly than early windows or dos. Oh, OS/2 has a JVM, I guess nothing useful is written in java. Xfree86 has been ported too, but no one uses that for anything i hear.
I don't use os/2 nor do I care to, but just because you don't use it, or anyone you know directly doesn't mean it isn't a good operating system. Anyone that i know that uses, or used it is for it's stability, something windows cannot offter no matter how many applications you can get for it.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
The Zaurus was an amazing critter; but most of its value was in pure Geek Factor. In Windows or in Linux, the Zaurus was interesting but plagued by ongoing random minor issues with synchronization, what version of QPE I was using, what the date was, and how I held my mouth. In Windows or in Linux, the Palm is nearly effortless.
The Zaurus had many neat things. I could log in to it over the network (wireless); I could run a webserver on it; I could do all kinds of system things. But in the end, the actual D of the PDA is much more usable in the Palm. I'd love to have the time and the money to develop replacements for the Palm software to run on the Zaurus, but I simply don't; I need something that works, and works well, right now.
Not to mention the fact that, comparitively, the Zaurus is enormous. It's easily half again as heavy, and an inch longer, and a little thicker, than the tungsten E.
If you go with the commercial QPE (that synchronizes well) functionality is low; if you go with the free embedded GUIs, functionality is high, but interoperability (in the form of synchronization with outlook and evolution) is low. Even with all the objections fielded in this discussion, the Palm is like a Sound Blaster - it just works.
And it's sad, too. I love Linux, I love free software, I love the entire Opensource movement, and I wanted to be much more pleased with the Zaurus. I would say, all in all, PDA linux is where desktop linux was at RedHat 5.2. It will get there, eventually.
Thinking outside my Head