Running Android On Netbooks

jjohn_h writes "Two guys at VentureBeat have managed to take the source code for Google's Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, Android, and compile it for an Asus netbook. Immediately, speculation began that Android will soon be running on PCs and laptops. '... we discovered that Android already has two product "policies" in its code. Product policies are operating system directions aimed at specific uses. The two policies are for 1) phones and 2) mobile internet devices.' Though some remain skeptical, I surely hope it is going to happen. Since Android does not rely on X11, but has its own framebuffer graphics, that would indeed be a cosmic shift."

Comments

This will be a very good thing

[bogaboga]

"... I surely hope it is going to happen. Since Android does not rely on X11, but has its own framebuffer graphics, that would indeed be a cosmic shift..."

Disclaimer: I know "Linux" is just a kernel, but while here, "Linux" means the various "Linux" distros as implemented on the desktop.

Android on mobile Internet devices will save the average Joe and Jane the problem that still dogs "Linux" on the desktop.

Many such problems are due to confusion because of: -

1: Multiple clipboard managers and therefore desktop environments

2: Linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are.

3: Geeks will argue that the CLI can be easily made consistent across distros but I call this CLI fanboyism. And it does help. There is virtually no young person in today's world who can stand this unless they are texting their friends. When it comes to the computer, they expect simplicity.

4: Multimedia is a mess with multiple sound systems. Heck, as a user, all I need is to hear my music. Period.

Re:This will be a very good thing

[at_slashdot]

Please mod parent as flamebait.

But I'll bite.

1. Yes, this is the Linux problem *rolls eyes* How do you know? Have you conducted a study? My simple guess is that people don't switch to Linux because their programs don't work in Linux and also because many don't go on changing their OS (some people don't know how to change the browser, heck some people call IE "the Internet") And how do you plan to solve this "problem" kill the developers that make other desktop environments, force people to use only one?

2. How Linux users realizing that people are different and that some are computer illiterate would change the "problem of Linux on desktop"?

3. Yes, simplicity is good, Linux is just as simple as Windows, you don't HAVE TO use the CLI, but it's simpler to explain if there's a problem, instead of "Open that program, move the mouse to "File" click, then go to the 3rd tab, select the 1,5, and 9 boxes" it's easier to say "type this in console". Moreover this is a myth, you don't NEED CLI in Linux, take Ubuntu for example you can do everything in GUI. I am not aware of anything important for which you need the CLI and there's no GUI alternative. But even in Windows you need sometime to edit files and to use "Run Command"

4. Music works on my box. Period.

Ohh really!

[bogaboga]

For points 1 to 3, explain to me why even after a MAJOR migration to Intel chips (and therefore a break in compatibility), Apple's OSX still does more [serious] work on the desktop as compared to Linux with its various implementations.

I am afraid you sound just like another Linux fanboy. Listen, your approach has not worked that well in 10 years! Apple came in with a new platform and kicked your *you know what* in terms of penetration.

Fix this man...fix it then things will work themselves out.

Re:Hurm.

[TheSeer2]

Linux is all about reinventing the wheel. FOSS is all about reinventing the wheel.

Re:Downside...

[yoyhed]

Can you change resolution without editing a config file and restarting X yet?