Slashdot Mirror


Latest Version of iPodLinux Reviewed

Demolition writes "The latest release of the iPod-Linux Installer has been reviewed on Accelerate Your Mac!, a popular Mac performance/modification site. As mentioned in previous Slashdot articles, the iPodLinux Project is an open source venture devoted to porting Linux to Apple's iPod. In a nutshell, the reviewer finds that the iPodLinux Project has progressed a long way from its early proof-of-concept days."

28 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds sketchy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it digitally signed?

  2. This is quite exciting. by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While the iPos already does everything it needs to (decent music playback, excellent interface, remarkably durable) there would be a number of advantages to putting Linux on it.

    It would be possible to get third-party support for formats that are not officially supported, such as RealMedia or Microsoft DRM-protected audio files. Additionally the dial interface lends itself to use for reading e-book or USENET newsgroups, or for keeping an address book, phonebook, or the days events in your pocket.

    However, I wonder if the GPL would create problems in this sort of environment -- presumably there is content that is not open on the player that would be necessary to incorporate into this project. Perhaps it would be wiser to adopt something Open Source such as OpenBSD instead; it's a text-only environment, so the lack of graphical support would be a minor problem at best, and it contains a good deal of security features that would be beneficial should wired applications for this new platform be developed after this project takes off.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:This is quite exciting. by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree - probably the only things that would be developed on top of iPod linux would be entirely new apps. Porting things like audio codecs or rewriting a work-alike of Apple's simple UI is trivial in comparison to the task of getting an OS with complete hardware driver support working on a custom embedded system.

      It would be simpler to reinvent those things than to try and get Apple's code to run atop Linux (through emulation of Apple's underlying firmware).

      The only reason not to GPL it is if you want to make it easier for Apple (or others) to reincorporate your improvements. That might be a good thing depending on your goals. I'd say porting Linux to the hardware is interesting per se, and could yield a groundswell of other OSS support - Apple has bigger fish to fry right now.

      Also realize: there are some generally accepted (but not explicit) rules that differentiate "derived" vs "aggregate" works when it comes to GPL. It is unlikely that using a GPL'd OS would preclude higher level apps like phone books from being offered under whatever license the author chooses.

  3. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not really. This is a very important project because there are several autonomous surveillance vehicles (ASVs) which will be deployed by the military that use the same basic architecture of the iPod for one of their flight control systems. It turns out that for long transcontinental flights, the little Lego pilot inside the ASV needs about 10 hours of music to keep him alert during the mission. Porting Linux to the iPod ensures that ASVs will be able to fly long after the iPod craze peters out and Apple goes out of business.

  4. Already down by Stevyn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they were hosting the site on an iPod.

  5. Bah! by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative


    I want an iPod with a 512x384 display, emulating a Mac Plus (except with much more RAM.)

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. Slashdotted, article text (anon, no karma whoring) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.
    Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

  7. Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by crazyphilman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, my GOD. It's almost like NetBSD. Next thing you know, there'll be Linux vibrators!

    Hmm...

    Suddenly I want to be a sysadmin!

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    1. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, my GOD. It's almost like NetBSD. Next thing you know, there'll be Linux vibrators!

      Where is this NetBSD vibrator of which you speak? I've always wanted to telnet in and see what's happening down there....

    2. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by n0dalus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've always wanted to telnet in and see what's happening down there....

      Don't forget to use protection. SSH.

  8. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Informative
    I don't know why so many Slashdotters like Apple; they do not support or sell Free Software and they do little to contribute to the FS/OSS community. For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back. And if you start going on about Darwin being open-source, keep in mind that Darwin has no practical use beyond its basis for OS X.
    You might want to do a little research first, next time.
    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  9. Progress by Cereal+Box · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a nutshell, the reviewer finds that the iPodLinux Project has progressed a long way from its early proof-of-concept days.

    Looks like it has support for the "back" and "stop" buttons. Support for the "play" button should be available shortly. But it plays OGG!

  10. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmm... Let's see...

    Safari, their own web browser... I seem to recall they took code from Konqueror, made it better in terms of rendering things better and more compatible... released Safari (closed-source), then gave their changes back to the Konqueror people

    Rendezvous. You may know this as ZeroConf. Yes, it existed before they did Rendezvous, but no one did it well. and they released their code back to the ZeroConf people to make the implementation and API better. They also made SDKs so people from every OS can use Rendezvous technology and work with Macs. Did MS help the Samba people?

    No company that shoots to make a profit is going to be 100% open source. No one has found a reliable business model on how to do it and stay alive more than a year. Apple does make closed software (and protects it, rightfully so, thats where their INCOME comes from. thats what keeps you on THEIR Unix, instead of taking their stuff and running off to any Linux distro that runs on PowerPC.) and ok, so you can't see the code, but the APIs are so well written, that just about anything Apple makes, I can plug into with my OWN software. How does MS let you plug into shit? With VB? Feh. They make things as easy as possible for developers, and give back to those they borrow from (the Watson thing was a load of crap, there was nothing "unique" about that, and the guy from Konfabulator is a whiny bitch cause someone else made widgets for OS X and did it in a way that doesn't eat up 95% of my CPU at idle.)

    While Apple IS a for-profit company, and they HAVE at times used legal threats to keep their products "safe" its mostly out of the purity of the mac "experience", not "shit, we're losing money on that".

    I don't see Apple getting too pissed off about this one though... If they aren't against people running Linux on their macs, why would they care about the iPods? Remember, the majority of the cash Apple sees is from hardware sales. The times when Apple gets pissy is when you meddle with their SOFTWARE. This keeps their software on the iPod intact (sort-of) so I don't see them getting their panties in a bind.

    But if you want to demonize Apple for trying to make a buck even though they've done more to try and help open source software than most of the other major players in the industry... go right ahead. it just make YOU look like the rabbid zealot for anything anti-Mac.

    --
    Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  11. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Lank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...keep in mind that Darwin has no practical use beyond its basis for OS X.

    Most operating systems have no practical use except for running applications written for them. What's your point?

    --
    Gotta get me one of these!
  12. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back.

    Let's not forget high-paying jobs for all those core developers....

    And quite a bit of Darwin code that you're free to roll into your own "BSD for PPC" distro.

    And the wine, the wine goes without saying.

    And the aquaeducts.

    But apart from the wine, the medicine, the acqueducts, and the peace, what has Apple done for us?

  13. Re:This has to be... by am+2k · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is the iPod fast enough for the Tremor decoder?

    The iPod is definitely fast enough to handle ogg vorbis. The problem is just that the iPod has two different processors, which the tremor decoder wasn't designed for (or anything else except the original Apple firmware). Linux on iPod currently doesn't use the second processor except for some very basic stuff.

  14. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://developer.apple.com/devicedrivers/firewire/ ip_over_firewire.html

    Now the IP over FireWire Preview Release adds support for using the Internet Protocol - commonly known as TCP/IP - over FireWire. With this software installed, Macintosh computers and other devices can use existing IP protocols and services over FireWire, including AFP, HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc. In all cases, Rendezvous can be used if desired for configuration, name resolution, and discovery.

    The preview release adds a new Kernel Extension that hooks into the existing network services architecture. Using the existing Network Preferences Pane, users can add FireWire as their IP network node to connect and communicate between two machines.

    Apparently it is still in a beta form, but, apple seems to be doing something about this.
    --
    If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
  15. Question of OGG Support by Kalak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since every time a media player is mentioned on /., and this is an iPod running Linux, and 95% of my collection is in ogg, etc. I've karma whore by posting this link to the currently /.ed iPod Linux Wiki FAQ. In short, here's the answer, and there is no reason, from either the site or TFA to change it (TFA says nothing about ogg.) No mailing list or forums available.

    Note: Linux != ogg. If your iPod runs linux, that does not mean everything you can run in mplayer will suddenly work on your iPod as some seem to be suggesting.

    Short version (from the Wiki):

    Is there an OGG player?

    The Tremor (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/) player is running at about 80% real-time.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    1. Re:Question of OGG Support by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Tremor (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/) player is running at about 80% real-time.

      First of all, an a/v codec that runs at 80% of real time is about as useful as an internal combustion engine that achieves 80% of the power needed to turn the crankshaft around for the next stroke. Ie not useful at all. Get tremor running fast, and then it's interesting.

      Secondly, few people understand exactly why ogg is so far behind mp3/wma/aac in terms of adoption. It's not because the commercial enterprises are "anti-OSS". It's because ogg was designed from the get-go to run on PCs and not embedded systems.

      I have personally looked at Tremor, with the goal of porting it to an embedded audio player, and found it to be very poorly designed in that it requires large amounts of fast on-chip memory, which is usually not present on embedded devices. Codecs like MP3 and WMA were carefully designed to work on embedded DSPs and this is one of many reasons why you'll find these codecs, and not Ogg, on all kinds of devices.

      Sorry ogg fans. It's not political. Your favorite codec kind of sucks.

    2. Re:Question of OGG Support by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Neuros version of Tremor runs on a TI DSP that has access to 64K of memory (total, for the code and data).

      It works fine. The source is available too.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    3. Re:Question of OGG Support by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...It's because ogg was designed from the get-go to run on PCs and not embedded systems.

      So I guess iRiver missed the memo huh? They have support for OGG on almost all of their flash players, and all of their HDD players.

      Click here if you doubt.

      The MP3 codec was not, in fact designed to run on portable systems, indeed it was never intended to be used separately from the MPEG-1 Video codec at all! Fraunhofer IIs simply came up with an audio codec that would pair well with MPEG's high-level video compression, someone figured out how to separate the stream into its own file, WinAmp came along, and presto, new music format.

      In fact, because of its kludgy origin, the MP3 spec lacks many features that would make life easier, including (exemplia gratis) a proper indexing system--hence the seeking weirdness and sometimes fugly playback that plagues VBR-MP3 files.

      The OGG container-file format and Vorbis encoder were designed to address these issues, as well as to provide a Free (speech & beer) and Open alternative to MP3, which is after all, property of Fraunhofer IIs.

      OGG's non-popularity as a music format is attributable to two things:

      1. obscurity, and
      2. the "good enough" factor.

      As a FOSS-developed format, OGG hasn't got the corporate backing (and advertising) that MP3 and WMA/ASF have. Therefore, not many have heard of it, outside of techie circles.

      Even beside that, many who do hear of OGG Vorbis will often casually dismiss it, saying "MP3 is good enough for me". A heresy for the /. set, to be sure, but many people simply don't have the time/energy/interest to pursue a better alternative when a functional alternative is staring them in the face.

      OGG support is nowhere near as hard to do as you make out, it's simply not done as often. Please do at least a little checking before you post such flamebait. (hint: try looking here or possibly here

      --
      "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
  16. support linux companies instead by jeif1k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are several nice disk-based MP3/ogg players out there that already run Linux out of the box. You can save yourself a lot of trouble, get a more functional device, and support FOSS by buying one of those. Apple's iPod just isn't built for Linux and Apple clearly doesn't want you to run a FOSS OS on it (otherwise they would have shipped it with one).

  17. Re:Interesting, but why? by Enahs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree, but for a different reason: why Linux? Why not some lighterweight OS than the Linux 2.4.x kernel?

    Don't get me wrong; I like the oh-look-someone-ported-Linux-to-a-toaster-isnt-tha t-neat stories as much as the next Slashdotter. But I do have to scratch my head on this one.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  18. Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by Linuxathome · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Possible iPod-to-iPod file transfer. This is currently under development, and is very possible. Not only will the iPod be able to access other iPods, running Linux or not, but it will be able to read from and write to Firewire and USB 2.0 mass storage devices.


    Sounds like the iPod will trump the USB external master storage device that slashdot just recently mentioned to us. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to move media from a USB all-in-one media reader to the iPod directly without the need of a computer? You could be taking pictures with a 16megapixel Canon and not worry about storage space as long as you have your iPod around. I'm gonna keep my eye on the development of this program. On top of that, recording audio with the left earphone bud is also another cool feature.
  19. The short version... by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

    The short version of the state of iPodLinux: It does work, and shows a lot of potential, but it's not quite useful as the sole OS for your iPod yet.

    A lot of development has been focused on the eye candy. Games, interface, that sort of thing.

    What is really needed is some kernel and hardware hacker type guys who can get stuff working underneath all the interface and eye candy so as to make it actually useful for everyday use. Case in point: The iPod has a dual processor sort of thing. In the Apple firmware, the secondary processor is more or less devoted to audio decoding. That's not yet working on the iPodLinux kernel, instead the second processor is heavily underused and thus it's basically incapable of playing back high bitrate MP3s or AACs or things along those lines. Sorting that out would be a big step.

    Looks and such are easy to program (hard to get right, but easy to actually do). Getting the thing to live up to its maximum potential is the hard part.

    Help is gladly accepted, BTW. :)

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  20. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Thumpnugget · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has got to be a troll, since you're cheering about Microsoft's open source contributions, but I'll bite.

    First, Apple cannot possibly contribute to all the open source software projects that ship with their OS. Neither does Sun, or Red Hat, or IBM, or anyone else. It's simply not possible. Everyone takes more than they give. It's like asking a Linux user to contribute to every open source project they use. They can't. But that's part of the beauty of open source: there is a huge amount of high quality code out there with healthy developer communities that a software vendor (and end user) can put to good use without having to vet every single line of code themselves. And when all of those vendors each give back to a few of the projects they use, it feeds back into the health of the entire open source community. So, every company can't help every project, but every project can help every company (and user). That's a good thing, the way I see it.

    And, Apple does give back. Particularly to GCC, FreeBSD userland, KHTML, X.org, Postfix, and others. And they always publish source for any modifications according to the appropriate license. I'm too lazy to go look up specifics for all of those, but there's a quick writeup regarding KHTML at www.kdedevelopers.org. Examples of the others shouldn't be too hard to find. But, you're not likely to see much front-page press about it. "Vendor X gives some code back to project Y" won't capture people's attention like "Vendor X stole code from project Y and is violating the license". You can scan the Slashdot headlines for proof of that. :)

    I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS.

    Well, there is Quicktime Streaming Server. That should count for something. There's also OpenPlay, and Rendezvous. Anyway, there's a list on Apple's site, go take a look. It's not Apple's fault if none of the projects they have put out there are anything that you want to use.

    but what has Apple really given of their own creation?

    QSS, as just mentioned. Anyway, you can't make any money by just giving everything away. Ask Red Hat. Anyway, every vendor has to keep certain things for themselves to differentiate their product or there would be no reason to buy their specific product. That holds true for any vendor using open source code, be it Sun, IBM, SGI, Apple, or anyone else.

    What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?

    Quartz: I highly suspect there may be issues with IP from the display technology vendors. ATI and NVidia are stingy with their IP, which is why there are no real open source drivers for their display cards for any OS.

    Aqua: Apple's UI is their main point of product differentiation, besides the custom hardware. Giving away Aqua would be like giving the hardware away.

    iTunes/iTMS/Fairplay: They can't release the source to these because it would compromise the authentication/DRM scheme that allows them to sell RIAA music in the first place. But even so, who cares? DRM sucks anyway and I won't buy DRM encumbered music from anyone for any cost. And, if you want to use iTunes for library management, there's Crossover iTunes.

    Sorenson: Not Apple's IP to open source. Go talk to Sorenson.

    --
    Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
  21. Re:So now I'm an abuser by pherris · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Don't accuse newssites and innocent surfers of being 'abusers'...

    I really don't think they mean to label visitors as being "abusers". It seems more like a poorly worded statement written in great haste (no doubt as their server was smoking and their ISP was freaking out). The site is cohosted hosted with theplanet.com and I'm pretty sure ipodlinix.org will either have to pay for the extra bandwidth use caused by this /. article or atleast shut down for a while. Money I'm sure they don't have. To add insult to injury their front index page is dynamically generated via php causing an extra, much unneeded load on the server.

    Since /. is a commercial site and attempts to generate revenue from advertising IMO the responsible and moral thing to do would be to try to do something to minimize it's impact on smaller sites. Maybe offer to mirror the site for a few days. In short, is it fair for /. to make money for every page view while the FOSS project site in question loses what little money they have for every corresponding page view? IMO, no.

    /. atleast needs to think about warning sites that they will be "featured" in an article and offer to use a site caching service like Coral. Or warn the site to "Coralize" themselves quickly to minimize damage.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST