The Opportunity of Mobile Linux in Danger

Eugenia writes "I just posted an editorial on the state of Linux for cellphones. Currently, there are 6 different initiatives and alliances, all completely incompatible between them, and in my opinion this kills a great opportunity for a unified 'Linux platform' that can compete with Windows Mobile and Symbian S60. As for the existing released Linux phones, only MiZi Research has an SDK freely available to create a GUI application for it. Motorola sells thousands more handsets than MiZi does through Samsung, and yet they don't release their EZX SDK. C|Net also wrote today: 'while Linux had a lot to offer in comparison with proprietary systems, such as improved scalability and flexibility, it is lacking in other areas, industry watchers said. Ovum telecommunications analyst Tony Cripps said that Linux-based smart phones are currently inhibited by the lack of a standardized application environment for third parties to write to, unlike Symbian's offerings.'"

Comments

It is a shame...

[JPribe]

that even in the OSS community there are still too many pissing matches that sound remarkably like "It's my way or the highway."

Re:It is a shame...

[rawtatoor]

Thats right. You both are right. Open Source is so-fucking-great. My way or the highway. Fucking A Right. Add that to the 196 window managers on fm.net and my way is any way that you can think of. So Fucking Great. If you don't like it no one here cares. Because we have choices beyond number. If you don't want choice why should that matter to anyone else?

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never written a first post before. Cool. Too bad I've got nothing to say about the subject except that this is exactly what happens with proprietary tool kits. Everybody hurts.

Naive, I know, but...

[tygerstripes]

lack of a standardized application environment for third parties to write to

For Linux? Why? If that's all manufacturers are worried about, can't they bolt on an evironment that isn't so Open? It may be against the FOSS movement, but I can't see manufacturers being particularly cut up about that. You may now flame me for not getting it.

Re:Naive, I know, but...

[bfree]

Welcome to the PalmSource/Access vision. Here you will have a choice of writing programs with GTK, Java or Palm 68k interfaces. The result should be to allow their devices access the full Palm and Java range of programs out there as well as leaving a new open route with GTK (and GStreamer) which should be fairly source compatible with other GTK based systems (e.g. Maemo from the N770). Of course nothing has been released yet so it remains to see how this will pan out in practice.

Not just for cell phones

[Mr. Sketch]

Currently, there are 6 different initiatives and alliances, all completely incompatible between them, and in my opinion this kills a great opportunity for a unified 'Linux platform' that can compete with Windows Mobile and Symbian S60

Now, if only we had this unified 'Linux platform' for the desktop, then maybe we could compete with Windows XP.

Re:Not just for cell phones

[GMFTatsujin]

I think we can delay worrying on that front. Microsoft doesn't even have a unified WinXP platform. There's home, professional, lite . . .

Re:Not just for cell phones

[Walter Carver]

Maybe. But one of the good things in Linux is that you can choose from the many different distributions. Choice is good, it's the meaning of freedom.

standardized environments

[Homo Stannous]

The reason linux distros are so different, on PCs or on cell phones, is that open source apps don't need a standardized environment and linux is made to work with open source apps. If your application uses autoconf, it's pretty darn easy to port to any distro. But have you ever tried installing matlab, lexmark printer drivers, or games? Closed source software like that has arcane installers that only work on red hat and have to be reverse engineered for other distros. The people who want linux to "standardize" are the people who want to sell closed source apps. "Standardization" would hurt those who use only FOSS because it would greatly reduce choice in your distros. FOSS is the core function of linux (that's the GNU in GNU/Linux). Linux should not cripple itself to make room for non-free software.

Re:standardized environments

[crossmr]

or they're the people who want to market linux to the mainstream. If things WERE standardized, it would be much easier to train people for lower level tech support (i.e. retail level like best buy, circuit city, etc) and to troubleshoot a lot of problems. As it is, you've got to be an expert or ready to spend hours on google figuring out someone's obscure problem. Were everything standardized it would be easier to figure out where everything is and how everything is laid out, etc. You'd be able to easily have graphical installers for everything to make things easy on the masses, etc

That is why Linspire is trying to create the distro they're creating. To make it that easy. I'm not a fan of linspire, but they have the right idea to market to the masses.

As long as there is money on this planet, you won't see Linux make major footholds if it sticks to a strict policy of only free software. People need support, and people don't give that for free.
They also need quality, and they sometimes need products sooner rather than later. Businesses sometimes don't have all day, week,month,year/etc to wait for a product to be brought up to snuff for them.

Yeah in a perfect world all the software would be free, and everyone would keep a penguin in their bathtub. But its not realistic.

Re:standardized environments

[ajs318]

The people who want linux to "standardize" are the people who want to sell closed source apps.

I had this idea for a totally virus-proof, malware-proof secure computing system. Basically, every single processor has a different instruction set. There's no way to run a binary compiled for anyone else's computer on yours, and no way for anyone except you to compile binaries that will run on your computer. According to which, if a binary is running on your computer then you must, at some stage, have had the source code for it.

It wouldn't exclude proprietary software, if only vendors would get it into their thick heads that source code and distribution rights are not the same thing. I'd gladly consider paying for software that did not come with distribution rights, as long as I was allowed to look at the source code and adapt it for my personal use. Not supplying users with the source code has worked really well to prevent anyone from copying Windows, hasn't it? Of course, in the 8-bit days when games and applications were written in assembler, then everything effectively came with user-readable and -modifiable source code .....

The funny thing is that this scheme can't be patented, because there is Prior Art. Back in the days, nearly all computers really did have different instruction sets. That is exactly why C was invented.

Re:standardized environments

[mrchaotica]

No, standardized environments are good. For example, Autoconf is a standard environment. Free Software that uses some other build method is just as much as a pain as anything else, you know (for example, using RPMs on a non-RPM distro or vice-versa).

Another area where even Free Software apps would benefit from standardization is in GUI libraries -- wouldn't it be nice if your GTK apps could be themed using the same utility as your QT apps?

A third area -- one where Free Software is actually good -- is in libraries in general. Isn't it nice how most apps use the same libraries (like, say, OpenGL)? You wouldn't prefer each app to install its own libs, now would you?

I see no reason why these cellphone makers can't just make environments using the Free Software standards we already have.

Re:standardized environments

[jb.hl.com]

Your computer would tank in the marketplace. Nobody (i.e no normal person) would be willing to compile software to use it. It would look (like it rightfully should) like you were putting your ideology and politics above ease of use and sensible operation.

I'm sure RMS would wet himself at the chance to sell that machine though :)

Re:standardized environments

[jb.hl.com]

Another area where even Free Software apps would benefit from standardization is in GUI libraries -- wouldn't it be nice if your GTK apps could be themed using the same utility as your QT apps?

This exists, but it is crap and looks weird.

A third area -- one where Free Software is actually good -- is in libraries in general. Isn't it nice how most apps use the same libraries (like, say, OpenGL)? You wouldn't prefer each app to install its own libs, now would you?

"Whoops, your version of QT has libqt3.so.1! Sorry, dude, we need libqt3.so.2. Nice try though."

If an app statically linked what it needs (like on the Mac) that would be good.

I see no reason why these cellphone makers can't just make environments using the Free Software standards we already have.

Here's one reason: there aren't any. GTK and QT are standards. X11 is a standard but no good on mobiles. See my point?

Re:standardized environments

[mrchaotica]

This exists, but it is crap and looks weird.

Yes, I know -- that's why I used it as an area where Free Software needs improvement.

"Whoops, your version of QT has libqt3.so.1! Sorry, dude, we need libqt3.so.2. Nice try though."

If you use the software the way it's intended -- by compiling everything together from source -- you don't have that problem.

If an app statically linked what it needs (like on the Mac) that would be good.

Mac apps don't statically link everything; I guarantee they all (except for weird ones) use the standard Core Foundation, Cocoa, etc. dylibs. You just don't see so many external dependencies because so many libraries are built into the OS.

Here's one reason: there aren't any. GTK and QT are standards. X11 is a standard but no good on mobiles.

False.

See my point?

No.

Re:standardized environments

[WilliamSChips]

If an app statically linked what it needs (like on the Mac) that would be good.

Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew. That works until there's a security bug in whatever's statically linked.

Re:standardized environments

[jb.hl.com]

...then the software maker releases a new binary. Duh.

Re:standardized environments

[WilliamSChips]

Great, you just magnified what should have been an update of 1 or 2 packages to 50+ packages.

Re:standardized environments

[salec]

I had this idea for a totally virus-proof, malware-proof secure computing system. Basically, every single processor has a different instruction set. There's no way to run a binary compiled for anyone else's computer on yours, and no way for anyone except you to compile binaries that will run on your computer.

Actually, it is close to proprietary software vendors' dream, provided one small change is made to your devised system: "yes way" for someone( and you get to choose who) "to compile binaries that will run on your computer". That way unauthorised copying would be futile because you purchase binary executable software from a vendor for an unique machine.

It could be done (You see, I had an idea similar to yours):
- The processor needs to internally decript each "machine code" binary executable chunk, prior to executing it, using private key / public key scheme.

- Public key is readable (or supplied by processor vendor) and you (the buyer) have to send it to (trusted, of course) software vendor when you purchase software (no shrink-wrapped distributions though, they need to encrypt it for each target, but it can be automated).

- You cannot decrypt it, as you don't have processor private key, so you can't crack it and re-encrypt it for others.

- Compilers you have installed are supplied with your processor's public key, or alternatively, you can feed them other processor's public key if you wish to write software for others' machines.

Of course, it is possible to tie (proprietary) compiler to host machine, but basically, you would have access to your processors public key, so nothing stops you from encrypting "open" machine code. Unless of course, if the processor vendor won't supply public key to end-users and instead shares it only with software vendors who have arangement with them, in which case you send software vendor your CPU ID so that they can get matching "public" key from processor vendor. Of course, it is not hard to predict that Big Brother would have access to this "public" keys as well, while processor ID's would be (and are today) easily obtained from programs running on them. Therefore, government agencies could make net-deliverable agent applets to run on your machine.

Now, that would be REALY evil (DRM/DMCA - spirit, anti-openness evil on n'th degree), but we can always whip up a FOSS interpreters and FOSS applications to run on top of that interpreters, as long as there is a way to obtain a (proprietary if nothing better) compiler for each machine. Alternatively, we must have a ready plan B: open source hardware platforms (CPU's and other system and data communication devices in programmable logic, etc.), or plan C: cyberpunk frankenputers made from old machines on steroids - clustered CPU's (probably of different generations and speed), expanding addressable memory space/hacking new technology memory modules into old computers, ... eighties again!

And remember: upgrade early, so that your trusted, open, old machines don't wear out to much, as you may need them again sometime!

Re:standardized environments

[Fedarkyn]

Linux should not cripple itself to make room for non-free software.

I would like to have freedom to choose between open or closed source software.

If your application uses autoconf, it's pretty darn easy to port to any distro

Are you kidding? the "next, next, next, finish" approach the "arcane installers" uses takes 15 seconds to install something. for 99% of my apps, that's all I need.

Most linux zealots don't understand that the users wants to use the apps, not the OS

Re:standardized environments

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

"Whoops, your version of QT has libqt3.so.1! Sorry, dude, we need libqt3.so.2. Nice try though."

You just gave away your lack of understanding of sonames.

Re:standardized environments

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one big problem in the use of autoconf - 99% of developers don't use it properly. They often take someone elses configure.ac and hack that, not understanding what they are doing.

>p>I work on Solaris, not Linux and its not unusual to see configure scripts add gcc compiler (like -Wall or -O2) even when I select another compiler (Sun's compiler). The compiler then stops, since it don't understand -Wall or -O2.

Unless developers learn to use these tools properly, porting applications will be more difficult than necessary. These issues are more likely to crop up if trying to run applications on very different hardware, like mobile phones. Assumptions that are made on typical PCs are likely to be wrong on phones in much the same way assumptions made on Linux are incorrect on Solaris. Get your act together developers!!

As for commerical applications I must admit Matlab is a pain to install - due to license manager. But Matlab is a lot less hassle than installing some open-source software that is badly written on a Linux box. I've seen some deveopers make comments like "it works on Redhat Linux so that is good enough". Perhaps then different Linux distros will not present the problems they do now.

What a load of bullshit!

[mrchaotica]

Haven't all these manufacturers heard of GPE, Opie, or even Maemo? Those ought to be easily adapted to run on phones instead of just PDAs.

I think the real reason they're all going proprietary (and not providing SDKs) is because the service providers don't want there to be an easy way for anybody but them to make applications for the phones.

Re:What a load of bullshit!

[poopie]

I think the real reason they're all going proprietary (and not providing SDKs) is because the service providers don't want there to be an easy way for anybody but them to make applications for the phones. Bingo! Just look at the phone services today and how much they're trying to charge for things that users could do for free...

couple of bucks PER MONTH for privilege of sending text messages

overage charges if you send too many text messages. Come on! TEXT MESSAGES! This is a miniscule amount of data compared to voice.

Pay for IM client

couple of bucks to download a ringtone or a backdrop pic!

couple of bucks to download a lame java game

couple of bucks PER MONTH to get email notifications about something

require use of airtime to transfer photos via email

no Wireless support to allow free data transfer (because someone might come up with a VoIP client for phones, I'm sure). Why can't I surf the web from my phone using wireless when it's in range and *NOT* have to pay cellular charges Seriously, the US is so far behind in cell phone technology and customer services options compared to Asia, it's not even funny.

Re:What a load of bullshit!

[Svartalf]

"I think the real reason they're all going proprietary (and not providing SDKs) is because the service providers don't want there to be an easy way for anybody but them to make applications for the phones."

I don't think that's the case, I KNOW that's the case. And, better yet, it's not just that they don't want people making apps, they don't want people copying the apps from one to the next- most of the Mobile Phone vendors gig you each and every time you get a new app for a new phone. That's $2-15 each and every time, or a recurring service fee of the same amount per month if you have the apps- with a standard framework that everyone has access to, it'd be more like Windows or Linux is now, instead of the way the phones are now and the way they want it. The big problem is that they can't seem to come to an agreement on how they want to screw all of us- some have done Brew, some have done a modified version of the official Java, etc. Therefore, we have all these different consortiums of Linux on the Smartphone companies.

Re:What a load of bullshit!

[mrchaotica]

The big problem is that they can't seem to come to an agreement on how they want to screw all of us

That's certainly not a big problem from my perspective! The more divided my enemies are, the better off I am.

From their perspective, of course, the problem is not that they can't come to an agreement, it's that they haven't yet succeeded in screwing over their competitors also by gaining a monopoly on their particular proprietary technology.

Re:What a load of bullshit!

[quincunx55555]

I think the real reason they're all going proprietary (and not providing SDKs) is because the service providers don't want there to be an easy way for anybody but them to make applications for the phones.

I agree, but I think that's only part of it. I think primarily, they aren't used to thinking that way AT ALL. In their world, they'll get in trouble using someone else's technology. In their world, if they don't create something unique and protect it like it's their genitals; then a competitor will kill them. The fear created by the closed-proprietary-ImGunnaGetMyLawersForYourIP world would easily put the blinders on them when considering using something created by someone else (even if they did want to tweak it to force income).

I wonder why not?

[ajs318]

First let me say how I'd like a Linux smartphone to work. I'd like to plug it into my computer with a USB cable and see various peripherals. A hard drive, that goes without saying. A network adaptor with a DHCP server; a web server on port 80 with the phone's web-based configuration; a database server on port 3306 containing the phone book, call logs and sundry housekeeping information, e.g. remaining talktime; a gateway to the outside world {via GPRS or 3G}; and assorted other servers, possibly including a SIP / IAX gateway. Two sound cards: one being the phone's own mic and speaker, and the other being the phone line.

Since the business of charging for a call is handled by the base station and not the handset, there are no implications for making things open that benefit the subscriber at the expense of the telephone company {though I can think of some that might benefit the telco at your expense ..... you would have to keep a close watch on how much talktime you bought while developing applications, for fear of eating it all up}.

But it's unlikely to happen without government intervention, because keeping things closed and proprietary benefits the handset manufacturers {to a limited extent} and the telcos {to a greater extent}. The easier it is for the likes of me and thee to muck about with our phones, the harder it is for the corporations to charge us money for cheesy applications.

Re:I wonder why not?

[powerlord]

the harder it is for the corporations to charge us money for cheesy applications.

Just think of how many cell phones lock down Blue-Tooth capabilities so you can't add your own ringtone unless you buy/download them on-line. Its one of the things at least, that T-Mobile got right.

Offer applications, and upgrade contents, but don't treat your customers like convicts.

Re:I wonder why not?

[ajs318]

Fortunately, I have a Sony-Ericsson k750i {forerunner of the Walkman w810i; uses the same recharger and accessories} so I can get all the ringing tones I like, for free! You can record any sound you can hear through the built-in mic, and use that as a ringing tone. Being an application where fidelity is less importance than volume, this works much better than one might suspect.

Re:I wonder why not?

[mrchaotica]

It's not a function of the phone, it's a function of the service provider and the firmware they load on the phone. For example, I guarantee that if you had bought that K750i through Verizon that the ability to use recorded sounds as a ringtone -- or indeed get them from any other source but VCast -- would have been disabled.

Re:I wonder why not?

[mrchaotica]

I completely agree with you on what the mythological "ideal" Linux smartphone would be, but realistically I'd just be happy even if it didn't have the fancy servers, as long as the information was available in a standardized file format in an externally-accessible directory.

Re:I wonder why not?

[dslbrian]

For example, I guarantee that if you had bought that K750i through Verizon that the ability to use recorded sounds as a ringtone -- or indeed get them from any other source but VCast -- would have been disabled.

I would have to agree, I use Verizon now, and previously I had been on Tmobile. Verizon to me seemed very much more directed at controlling what one can/can't do with their phone. For instance having to purchase a service just to be able to sync the phonebook to your computer, uhh no thanks. Thankfully BitPim took care of the sync and data limitations (allows one to sync and download ringtones, wallpapers, etc), and HowardForums exists, which informed me how to get the more unusual stuff working (transferring DVD movies to the phone and such). Those two things vastly improved my experience with my current Verizon phone.

Sad thing is when people complain about how the phones in Japan and such are so much better, the issue is not technology or the phone itself, its that our telco's here won't market any phone they can't use to extort money with (via content and/or airtime charges). Blocking bluetooth data because one can circumvent their data/airtime charges when near a LAN, ringtone downloads (with "use" limits), charging to send AND receive txt messages (typically fractions of a kB in size), charging retarded fees per kB of data, or my Verizon favorite - charging per minute when using a web browser even if its not transferring data (!) - all a bunch of subtle or not so subtle methods of extorting cash. The telco's in this country suck, so I highly recommend everybody to: get BitPim and read the forums (because you know THE MAN hates it when people know that stuff)

Re:I wonder why not?

[ajs318]

You do know that you can flash the firmware in a phone, don't you? Once the first year is up, you own the instrument, and so aren't damaging someone else's property. You might technically be invalidating regulatory approval {since it's no longer strictly identical to the type-approval sample}, but as long as your phone doesn't hog the airwaves or make unattended calls, that shouldn't be a problem -- you have to actually do something illegal to get caught, and ringing tones and so forth are beyond the remit of the relevant regulatory agencies {RA/BABT in the UK, FCC in the USA}.

Re:I wonder why not?

[mrchaotica]

Yes, I know. However, it would be infinitely preferable to have a phone without the stupid restrictions in the first place (which is why I'm not a Verizon customer, although Bellsouth isn't all that much better).

Re:I wonder why not?

[kestasjk]

MySQL (port 3306) and all those other apps on a phone? That would be a pricey phone. Phone != PC just because it's running linux.

I read the headline wrong

[poot_rootbeer]

I assumed from the headline that the story would be about the opportunity for Danger Inc., the company that developed the Sidekick handsets and operates its data services, to leverage Mobile Linux on a future version of their device.

It actually may not be a bad idea for them -- their current platform of a custom J2ME implementation on ARM7 doesn't seem to have much of a future. Few developers are producing software for it due to its differences from other handsets (and its restricted distribution model). It's falling behind even less expensive handsets in the market in terms of hardware support for things like Bluetooth and EDGE.

Opening up the platform and making it a tiny Linux box could give Danger a whole new market for the device: techies who don't care much for Blackberries or Treos.

But as long as Paris Hilton and P. Diddy are happy with theirs, that may never happen.

Bad joke. Please don't read...

[digitalgiblet]

"Ovum telecommunications analyst Tony Cripps said..."

In a tragic side-note, Tony Cripps was gunned down in an apparent drive by shooting by Billy Bloods...

Damn it, I warned you it was a bad joke.

Re:Bad joke. Please don't read...

[dbIII]

It's also no surprise that an Ovum analyst would prefer the sybian.

FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

most embedded appliances like handy and pda with linux uses qtopia, isnt that some sort of abi standard they are asking for? incl application 'hand'top?

Re:FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, only 1 of the 6 initiatives for Linux on cellphones uses Qt Embedded (and that's not Qtopia alright).

Data Pilot

[phrostie]

i was hoping this would be something related to using a DataPilot kit with my linux laptop to connect to the internet.

anyone know about any such projects?

This is not a realy big deal...

[sorin7486]

I don't like this kind of articles... I mean the kind that make a big deal out of nothing... Well it's not exactly nothing but I think it's at least exaggerated: all new technologies are not really compatible at some stage.. Of course all the cell phone manufacturers will agree on some compatibility issues as soon as they realize they need to... But for now they don't because linux is still "emerging" on this market and each company is pushing forward it's own things.. It's all a competition and this is good because in the end only the best implementations will be supported. Until then they can all mature independently with no interference. On the other hand I don't think linux can "lose" the embedded market...The flexibility that open source offers is a huge advantage over any proprietary software that can't be overlooked just because of by bad timing..

I have one thing to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to linux... the Fragmentation OS (TM).

Re:I have one thing to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is similar to UNIX after all. The biggest difference is you'll be able to keep all the pieces, even if the developer or distributor goes away.

Motorola Joins Eclipse Foundation With New Tools f

[coastwalker]

http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail.js p?globalObjectId=6906_6860_23

Looks like these chaps are keen on Linux suceeding and working with the Open Source community

we do

[m874t232]

Linux effectively has Gnome and KDE, and the two work together very well. That means at most two toolkits, with an active effort to integrate them.

That makes the situation better than, say, on Mac OS, which has Cocoa, Carbon, some Classic, and a lot of incompatible third party toolkits. And Windows has a baroque mix of 16bit and 32bit applications, various levels of Win32, and soon .NET, Avalon, and Vista.

patience

[m874t232]

Open source is rarely first to market. It has taken years for open source to start to displace other vendors in other markets, and it's going to take patience for cell phones as well.

If Palm gets it right, Palm may well change the tide. If not, some other company will.

What is pretty clear already is that the current crop of Linux phones based on some Linux+J2ME or Linux+Qt/Embedded is not going to cut it. Why? Because none of those phones are going to offer compelling advantages for mainstream users, and their use of non-standard GUI solutions means that they also fail to be interesting to most geeks or vertical application developers using open source APIs.

So, "getting it right" means shipping full Linux, with standard libraries, standard command line environments, and X11. Nothing else will really do, and given the power of today's cell phones, there really is no reason not to.