Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Linux Eyes Gadget Apps
An anonymous reader writes "Three developers have launched a project to turn Ubuntu into an embedded Linux distribution, according to a story on LinuxDevices.com. The resulting "EmbeddedUbuntu" OS aims to simplify the creation of embedded software for gadgets such as mobile phones, PDAs, and web tablets, and provide their owners with easier access to sophisticated open source desktop applications, such as multimedia streaming software. What do you think: will they call the mobile version Mobuntu?"
It appears to be an official Ubuntu project:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EmbeddedUbuntu
Ubuntu indeed does not give you root access through the GUI and quite frankly it isn't necessary, running Linux as root is the same as running Windows as administrator, especially in the GUI!
At home, I run my Breezy as a normal user (I'm the only one on that machine), and I've never had to resort to the root user. 'sudo' _is_ enough for all your tasks, or if you prefer GUI password box 'gksudo'.
I don't understand why peopl gripe about this structure.. on the one hand they scream at the tops of their lungs that running admin in Windows is bad, but on the other hand, they do expect to have root (and nothing less) when running in Linux. Why?
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Maybe I've been asleep too long and missed the news... but haven't they had embedded Linux for a decade now? What makes this one newsworthy?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I heard that geyes like to use Mac. Is this true?
I whole heartedly agree. Nothing was more irritating to me than to install Kubuntu ( the 'Breezy Badger' distro ) than to find out that I couldn't graphically interface as root, even though it would prompt me with the *psudeo*-root password.
Why didn't you just run "sudo passwd root" and edit your kdmrc to enable root logins if you felt the need for a graphical login?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
You're clearly a victim of cultural conditioning. Most human beings who don't live in cities see a mixture of browns and greens whenever they look outside, and don't have a problem with it. We tend to go for the same colors inside houses, too. Brown wood panelling for walls has up-market associations, but the lobbies of expensive hotels presumably don't remind the visitors of shit. There is no a priori reason why computer screens should have blue backgrounds.
Pining for the fjords
Call me crazy, but wasn't the premise of Ubuntu to concentrate on making a great desktop OS on a select few platforms, with the argument that Debian is more for having universal portability across a wide array of platforms? I know there is already embedded Debian, not that I mind there being embedded Ubuntu. I just hope they don't spread themselves too thin. And secondly, instead of making another Linux that runs embedded, why don't they make a small handheld platform with touchscreen and USB host support so we can cheaply and easily make our own embedded projects easily from commodity parts?
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Well, people who study this sort of thing say that colors and color combinations send different messages. Light colors suggest ease of use; dark colors suggest power.
Contrasting color combinations are attention getting and suggest fun. Saturated colors have the same effect. Think the baby isle of the toy store with its bright blues, reds and yellows. Adjacent, analagous color combinations, or tints and shades of the same color, suggest subtlety.
Decoding this, the typical Microsoft look is cool (as in temperature) and saturated, it is meant to be attention grabbing and suggest ease of use and fun, but it not so much fun and ease of use we are in Playskool territory. The Ubuntu look, in dark earth tints, suggests warmth, subtlety, and power, but not one that intrudes on the user's attention. It is a kind of power at rest. Perhaps a kind of latent power that the knowledgeable user can draw on. Now we know where Radagast got himself to, I guess. He works for Ubuntu.
My boss and I have frequent disagreements over color choices. He favors what to my eye are garish, oversaturated triadic color schemes. As a sales guy, getting attention is what he thinks of all day; however I believe that this Playskool look is tiresome for the users. I prefer neutral tones, shaded of gray, perhaps with subtle blue shades mixed in, although in truth I rather like a look of old, brownish red gall ink on parchment. My main motivation however is not aesthetic. I want background things to be readily seen, and when I choose a bright blue or red I want it to stand out. Too many bright colors produces visual confusion; you can see the background details but you eye is drawn aay from them; the foreground details are lost.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
One man's meat, as they say... I changed my Win2k theme to brick (brown/beige/tan) after trying out Ubuntu. The blue began to feel like it's out to stab my eyes after a while. I agree with sibling, use color to provide contrast for important things. I want my core UI to be subtle.
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max