Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mobile Linux Challenges Windows Mobile

Posted by timothy on from the here-have-a-site-license dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Taking a page from Microsoft's playbook, MontaVista today announced an embedded Linux platform aimed specifically at mobile phones. 'Mobilinux' is based on a 2.6 kernel with real-time and power-management enhancements, and targets 'feature-phones' as well as the higher-end devices targeted by Microsoft with its Windows Mobile for Smartphones offering."

23 comments

  1. Linux 2.6 is slower than 2.4... by Dark+Coder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would be wary of going into 2.6 over 2.4 kernel for low-power application such as a cell phone.

    Check out the Linux v2.4 vs. Linux v2.6

  2. Mobile Phones Feature Musts by mr.+mulder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The primary users of mobile phones with Windows Mobile are business users - and business users use the phones becaus ehtey nicely integrate into their Windows environment (Exchange, Blackberry, Word, Excel, contacts, emails, etc.)

    If they can develop a Linux mobile device that syncs with Exchange or Blackberry (wirelessly like ActiveSync), it would be money.

    1. Re:Mobile Phones Feature Musts by freitasm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Infineon, Trolltech and Samsung introduced a reference design back in February.

      Motorola not only is already selling Linux-based Smartphones since September 2004, but in addition to that they also licence Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync to synchronise with Exchange Servers.

    2. Re:Mobile Phones Feature Musts by mr.+mulder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thinking this through further, what business users need is an inexpensive open-source solution architecture that provides a HTTP-based syncronization mechinism for transferring mail between handhelds and corporate servers.

      Blackberry has done the ultimate-super-expensive version of this where it is completely closed-source. They've even brought it to the level of selling their own hardware.

      A successful open-sourced project surrounding this topic would do the following:

      1. define an xml/soap based protocol for formatting and transmitting email to mobile devices. keeping in mind that this is a business-geared standard, you would want support for encryption, authentication, pass-through authentication, synchronization, etc.

      2. somehow hype this so that everyone begins to include it in their products as THE protocol for mobile email syncronization

      3. build a server-end piece that integrates with all of the industry standard mail servers

      4. build plug-ins for mail clients that utilize this protocol.

      Problems that will arise: Microsoft will embrace the protocol, but then create its own protocol called the eProtocol (enhanced-protocol). They'll tout it as the new industry standard and incorporate their new "e" version into Exchange Server 2015. By 2017, everyone will realize that eProtocol sucks and that the standard protocol needs serious revisions. That will lead us back to this same conversation we're in right now. But, by that time, XML and SOAP will be the old industry standard and we'll find even more bloated ways of representing data by encapsulating it with somehting new...but this won't matter because we'll be surfing on our mobile devices at DSL speeds.

    3. Re:Mobile Phones Feature Musts by freitasm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm. There's an open standard: SyncML. There are SyncML clients for different mobile platforms and desktop/laptop OS. It's implemented and distributed on Symbian OS, it is part of Bluetooth OBEX, it's available as a tool for Windows Mobile.

    4. Re:Mobile Phones Feature Musts by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1
      I use IMAP with my phone, works beautifully. I have configured the phone's client to first get the headers and only get the body if I ask it too.

      Can't really imagine it being simpler.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  3. So who exactly would have root? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who exactly would have root on the phone?

    1. Re:So who exactly would have root? by JVert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly.

      Cellphone providers have been dying to open up the software on cellphones so they can get out of the buisness of managing purchasing of dime a dozen software and games. I was recently talking the the head of Verizon, (he was out at a cellphone kiosk at the local mall getting input from subscribers and handing out popcorn). He said having these kind of options for phones is a great step for cell providers because customers can focus on the signal they are getting and dropped calls vs judging a company based on how many ringtones can be purchased.

    2. Re:So who exactly would have root? by SwornPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Verizon doesn't care about the money they get from selling ringtones, games, etc, then why do they lock out bluetooth profiles that allow users to load ringtones and games from a computer, or transfer pictures and phonebooks? I had considered Verizon until I heard about this very shady practice.

      They love to talk about how they have the "largest calling area," but it's a fair assumption they are making a small mint on ringtones and games.

    3. Re:So who exactly would have root? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. Verizon makes so much money on those "dime a dozen" games and ringtones it's silly. In fact, they know they make so much money. Sprint and Cingular allow users to connect their phones to the computer and upload whatever. Verizon FORCES manufacturers to cripple connectivity features so users must purchase from Verizon's Get it Now! service.

      I think that Verizon exec was shovelling you some bullshit. Cell phone makers have the technology to open up cell phones all they want. It's the carriers that cry when manufacturers like Motorola build in support for iTunes which undercuts their own outrageously overpriced services (compare $0.99 for an entire song to $1.50 or more for a mere ringtone).

    4. Re:So who exactly would have root? by JVert · · Score: 1
      Maybe this could help explain what I mean.
      </sarcasm>
    5. Re:So who exactly would have root? by doc+modulo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean that we can finally use our PC's and flat-fee broadband connections and put applications on our phones that way?

      On the one hand that's what providers want because they lose money on every game and ringtone they sell. According to the Register, a site that I trust. They want to give you freedom to do it on your own because it's costing them to put it on there for you.

      However! They won't like it if you put a Jabber IM client on your phone and use instant messages or picture messages instead of SMS or MMS because they're raking in big bucks with that. They charge for both the MMS AND THE GPRS TRAFFIC! They'd like to keep you a dumb consumer for that.

      The Register thinks they want to avoid becoming a wireless ISP at all costs because they'll bring in less money. Voice over IP instead of cell prices, jabber instead of SMS/MMS.

      I don't know if the manufacturers want to sell you open and Free phones and have you use it as a miniature PC and use a carrier just as a normal ISP, like you're using your big PC at the moment.

      Maybe they'll sell more phones when they can sell you phones with all the features they want. Maybe they want to keep the current situation and sell phones with only minimal features, or only extra features that the carriers don't mind.

      Whatever the phone manufacturers want, at the moment they're stuck as the slaves of the carriers because the carriers are the ones choosing the phones that they're going to give subsidies for. No subsidies for your phone, your phone doesn't sell as well.

      I'm still investigating how everything fits together.

      And what do you want? And how can we get it?

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
  4. Compete with Windows Mobile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure it would take much to challenge Windows Mobile. Nobody really uses the platform.

    Maybe compete with SymbianOS would be more impressive. Or more realistic, compete with PalmOS?

    Both of these have more market share than Windows Mobile by a mile. I wouldn't be surprised if Linux wasn't already more prevalent that Windows Mobile.

  5. Microsoft is really doing things differently by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

    Notice how their "other" square is outside of the big grey square? Now that's innovative.

    Linux has the same arrangement of squares as Symbian, with a blue background. That's just a different skin. Symbian could do that too.

    --
    I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  6. finally, an X11-based mobile environment by cahiha · · Score: 1

    MontaVista seems to be using X11 for their user interface. That's a big step forward. Does anybody know more details about their UI? I couldn't find a lot on their web site.

    (I have several Qt/Embedded and Qtopia-based devices, and those truly suck: Qt/Embedded and Qtopia are slow, consume gobs of memory, waste screen real estate on useless UI elements, and restrict you to exactly one toolkit to program in. They feel like a bad clone of PocketPC.)

    1. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pfft. You don't need X11.

      directfb+SDL+cairo(glitz)+SVG == pure portable GUI mannah.

      I'm lovin' it, personally ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    2. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by cahiha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The advantage of X11 is that there is lots of software that uses it: toolkits, applications, etc.

      If you roll your own with SVG, there is nothing. SVG-based GUIs will probably a major role at some point, but by running them on top of X11, you give users a smooth transition.

    3. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by torpor · · Score: 1


      yeah, in theory. in practice, it'll be shit to run any X11 app on your phone, where it wasn't designed for in the first place.

      and since this article is a developer-focus one (you won't get consumers all excited about this), whats the point? write code for your new GUI environment, yo!

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by cahiha · · Score: 1

      yeah, in theory. in practice, it'll be shit to run any X11 app on your phone, where it wasn't designed for in the first place.

      That's bullshit. The fact that the XFree86 implementation, which is perhaps all you have ever seen, is obese and adapted to workstation usage doesn't mean X11 is. Furthermore, there are plenty of X11 applications for those kinds of environments.

      X11 was designed for hardware that was much less powerful than today's phones. I used to run X11 and a full SVR3 UNIX system for software development on a 20MHz 386 with 4Mbytes of RAM, and that was a powerful machine at the time. Some X11 implementations are among the most light-weight window systems around.

      And in terms of software, there is plenty of it. X11 has all sorts of window managers available for it, including full-screen window managers that are ideally suited to use on small screen devices, and there are many X11 applications specifically designed for small screen devices, as well as many other applications intended for bigger screens that run just fine on a small screen device. Handhelds.org has several environments, and with X11, you can use any of those applications with whatever MontaVista has on it natively.

    5. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by torpor · · Score: 1

      The fact that the XFree86 implementation, which is perhaps all you have ever seen ..

      errmm.. no. i'm running X.org on all my boxen.


      X11 was designed for hardware that was much less powerful than today's phones. I used to run X11 and a full SVR3 UNIX system for software development on a 20MHz 386 with 4Mbytes of RAM, and that was a powerful machine at the time. Some X11 implementations are among the most light-weight window systems around.

      Yes, I remember running X11 just fine on my MIPS Magnum pizzaboxes, thanks very much.

      I don't disagree that X11 can run, just that its pointless for developers to use it if they're working on a new cell phone platform, where there are plenty of other better, smaller, lighter options ... and no I don't think that X11-portable apps on a cell phone are a 'feature'. Nice, maybe, but 'feature', no.

      Again, someone tell me an X11 app that I want to run on my cell phone. Skype? Heh heh ..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by cahiha · · Score: 1

      errmm.. no. i'm running X.org on all my boxen.

      X.org is derived from XFree86. It's nice, but it's not designed for being lean.

      I don't disagree that X11 can run, just that its pointless for developers to use it if they're working on a new cell phone platform, where there are plenty of other better, smaller, lighter options ...

      People keep claiming that there are "better, smaller, lighter options". I'd like to know what they are, because I haven't found them. Qt/Embedded, WinCE, and Palm are all slower and less functional as user interfaces than X11 on a PDA, and they have a much more restricted set of widgets and toolkits they support.

      Again, someone tell me an X11 app that I want to run on my cell phone. Skype? Heh heh ..

      Well, QPE for starters. Then, many FLTK applications will work just fine. There are lots of emulators: Apple II, Atari, Palm, PocketPC, gaming platforms. Scripting and development tools like Tcl/Tk, wxPython, PyGTK, wxLua, and LuaFLTK (all very convenient for quickly throwing together little portable apps). PDF and other document viewers. Ebook readers. X11-based handwriting recognizers. Flashcard training programs. Kanji dictionaries. VNC viewers. Some may or may not have been ported to some "embedded" toolkit, but all of those exist for X11 and require little more than a recompile for running on a PDA or phone. With X11, it's also easy to customize or adapt the UI to new devices, since it neatly separates window management from applications and since there are many window managers one can build on already.

      Even if you have a desktop app whose UI doesn't work on a phone, converting an X11 desktop app to a small screen is usually a heck of a lot easier than porting it to a different toolkit.

      For debugging, running an xterm is nice on a PDA/phone. Or you can have your desktop PDA application actually running on the phone and display on your desktop--no need to synchronize or fiddle in other ways.

      X11 on a portable device is just really, really nice (I know--I have used it). And with new application mobility and RandR, it's just getting better.

    7. Re:finally, an X11-based mobile environment by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

      I KNEW there was a reason I was happy Gnome2.10 came out! But I probably won't get one of these phones until Gnome3 comes out. And by then, who knows, maybe E17 will be stable enough to run on it.

  7. Nice, but not a winner until... by spagetti_code · · Score: 1
    ...they release windows connectivity for it.

    I know we hate to say it, but Windows and lookOut are pretty dominant. A modern phone will be limited to the fans unless it integrates with outlook (and preferably other PMSs too) *as well as* linux. And I didn't see that out of the box.