Dual-Booting PengPod Tablet Can Run Linux/Android

New submitter garbagechuteflyboy writes "The PengPod is the first dual-booting tablet; It's able to run both Linux and Android. Pengpod is now running the latest Plasma Active which gives this powerful Linux tablet features that were previously only available to iPad and Android tablets. PengPod is currently selling pre-orders on Indiegogo." garbagechuteflyboy adds links to articles about the dual-OS tablet at liliputing, at Ars Technica, and at PCWorld. "First dual-booting tablet" seems like a hard claim to back, but it's nice to see a tablet marketed with Plasma Active in mind.

Comments

Dual boot

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual boots linux and ... well ... linux.

Re:Dual boot

[RevWaldo]

~ Uh, what kind of music do you usually have here?

~ Oh, we've got both kinds. We've got Country and Western!

.

First?

[Jethro]

Because I was dualbooting WebOS and Android on my touchpad a year ago.

Also, having never heard of this device before, I looked it up and... frankly... it seems pretty horrible.

Re:First?

[gmuslera]

In the N900 (the cellphone version of the Nokia Internet Tablet, i suppose it can count as a tablet) there were several linux versions available to install and choose at boot between them. Used to have the default Maemo with Meego and Android, but several more were available.

Re:First?

[Boltronics]

"Used to"? I'm still rocking the N900, with Maemo and Debian GNU/Linux wheezy dual-boot.

There's also Arch, Ubuntu, etc. Many also run one of these distributions in a Maemo chroot. I bet it would have WebOS ported to it if only it had more power. Android is also ported via Nitdroid (although I hear newer versions such as ICS run too slowly).

Resistive Screen

[Nerdfest]

I was about to sign up for one of these earlier this week, but the specs seem to indicate a resistive screen. After trying one of the cheap Chinese made Android tabs with a resistive screen, no thanks. I could deal with a bit less speed or memory, but the screen's got to be capacitive.

Re:Resistive Screen

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to sign up for one of these earlier this week, but the specs seem to indicate a resistive screen. After trying one of the cheap Chinese made Android tabs with a resistive screen, no thanks. I could deal with a bit less speed or memory, but the screen's got to be capacitive.

It has a capacitive screen

Re:Resistive Screen

[drachensun]

Its in the updates on the site: Q: Do the PengPods use a capacitive touch screen? A: YES, no resistive touch screens, only capacitive. I think some confusion has been caused by the fact that the A10 chip has a built in resistive touch screen controller. We are not using it, we are using an ft5x capacitive touch screen controller chip with 5 point multi-touch.

Re:Resistive Screen

[hobarrera]

Damn that, I would have gotten on if it had a resistive screen. I can't stand capacitive screens and it seems the entire market is flooded with those!

Re:Resistive Screen

[serviscope_minor]

After trying one of the cheap Chinese made Android tabs with a resistive screen, no thanks.

Hm, you don't think that being cheap had anything to do with it as opposed to being resistive do you? I take it that you've never used a good resistive touce screen, then?

I had a Zaurus SLC3100 years ago, and it had an excellent resistive touch screen. The lag was low and the precision was high. I actually had a full OpenBSD install on it, and it was prefectly capable of running the GIMP, which was actually quite fun with a stylus. I actually miss the precision of that screen, it was really great.

The nastyness on nasty touch screens is due to them being cheap, not resistive.

Re:Resistive Screen

[Psyborgue]

Personally I hate them. It's basically a flexible plastic film with some sensors underneath that does wear out over time, unlike glass. If you scratch a resistive screen, good luck getting an accurate tap anywhere near the scratch, rendering it useless if you're trying to tap anything small like an on-screen key. I don't dispute that the n900 is a fantastic device for which a capacitive screen probably wouldn't be a good design choice (unless it had a precise stylus like the newer Samsung Notes), but for most phones that you just want to shove in your pocket, it's not a good choice.

My current phone has a capacitive screen made with gorilla glass. I've had it close to two years now and there's not a scratch anywhere on the screen despite taking no extraordinary care and regularly placing it in my pocket sans-case (granted I put my keys in another pocket, but still...). If it was a resistive screen, i'd have to take much more care of it to guard against scratches and pressure damage. I suppose it's a personal preference but now that there are decent stylus capable capacitive screens out there, there's really no reason to hand onto the technology anymore.

you mean GNU and Android

[davydagger]

because both of them use linux as the kernel. So in this case it would be not just appriopriate, but important to seperate between GNU/Linux and Android/Linux.

This tablet runs GNU/Linux AND Android/Linux.

What will really impress me is if you can get a hybrid userland where you can run GNU on android.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[darkNeko]

It's important because it's target as you say it's not for consumers, but for geeks. The differences are significant if you want to develop for one or the other, specially if you want to use X vs whatever android uses. You can easily port thousands of apps that use X, but those same apps are a pain to port to android. I, as profesional could use a tablet with full linux, where I can use some software does the work I need, with a simple recompile, instead of having to port it to android with several different libraries and subsystems.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[cpicon92]

I think the point is really that the summary makes it sound like Android is not Linux. It is Linux, but it has a different userland from what people normally think of as Linux (GNU/Linux).

It's important to make the distinction because people have a tendency to forget that Android is Linux. As soon as it became popular many people accused it of not being "linuxy" enough.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[squirrelthetire]

people have a tendency to forget that Android is Linux.

No, It's an OS that uses Linux for a kernel. That's an important distinction that people tend to forget, mostly because of the fact that until Android, just about any OS using Linux also used GNU. With that fact changing, people should realize that GNU/Linux and Android/Linux are different, and therefore incompatible.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[davydagger]

Its important to make the distinction for two reasons.

1. Android/linux has a diffrent userland than gnu/linux. android is in fact %100 linux, but its not the "linux" most geeks want to use. They want their typical "linux user experiance", which means they want the rest of the programs that are bundled by most "linux" distributions. This user experiance has a name. Its called "GNU". Most importantly I assume that most geeks would want gcc, GNU make, glibc, etc..., so they can start compiling standard GNU/linux applications they enjoy on other platforms.

GNU here is the big keystone, because once you have GNU, to include GCC, glibc, gnu make, bash, etc..., then even if the thing didn't come with X11, and a widely used desktop, which it does(KDE), it'd make it a lot easier to port. It'd make it easier to port and run standard libraries.

So I'm just calling "standard linux stuff" by its proper name. "GNU"

2. Regardless of what you think of the man, Richard Stallman, and the FSF did/does put a considerable amount of effort into GNU, I'd say as much as Linus, and the kernel team does. Especially since the fact that gcc/gmake/glibc get used in to test new platforms, and are the crux of a good deal of linux software, to include the kernel.

Linus, and his kernel team get all the credit, while Stallman and the FSF who did/do put work in, get next to none. While I do hold Linus in high regard, the FSF deserves credit for GNU. Give it where its due.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

GNU sat on their hands and didnt bother with releasing a kernel, ever.

They don't get to piggy back on Linus' achievement of actually finishing on time.

Unless they think they should get credit for BSD, NeXT and OSX too.

Re:you mean GNU and Android

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Nothing changes the fact that Linus had something booting in the 1990s while the GNU/Hurd project was going nowhere.

If anything, the fact that in the wider media it's called Linux should be a sobering message to RMS that being truly free means never having to say, "GNU Slash" and being able to take from the community.

The PengPod folks are vague

[bogaboga]

Our goal is to build a powerful, True Linux Tablet, one free of Android's restrictions, at a reasonable price.

Why won't they list the so called "Android's restrictions?"

They appear to have made up this statement...just for fun.

Re:The PengPod folks are vague

[ThatsMyNick]

I assumed they were referring to the restricted runtime environment. Your code runs on dalvik, uses the Android Window management system, network access is again limited by what the Android environment allows, and so on.

Dupe

[Narishma]

garbagechuteflyboy adds links to articles about the dual-OS tablet at liliputing, at Ars Technica, and at PCWorld.

How about a link to Slashdot's story a week ago.

I like Ubuntu's idea better

[caseih]

I'd rather run both Android and a Linux desktop at the same time. They both use a Linux kernel after all, so dual-booting seems a bit redundant. Why not run an android system (if not individual apps) as an app within, say, KDE plasma.

Actually, I'm surprised that MS and others haven't just implemented Android-compatible subsystems within their OS's and run Android apps natively. Need windows apps *and* Android apps? no problem. We support them both! Android isn't actually Linux after all; it's a Java environment and the kernel is irrelevant. I think BB 10 wanted to do this (QNX kernel), but I don't know if they ever did.

Re:I like Ubuntu's idea better

[Jartan]

Android isn't a Java environment at all. The code for Dalvik apps is written in java then compiled to java bytecode. That bytecode is then compiled to Dalvik bytecode. The actual systems/api of the two have nothing in common either.

It's possible to port it but it's fairly reliant on Posix to work. Far easier to just use an emulator. Dalvik is a register based runtime though so I'm unclear about it's performance on an x86 system.

Re:I like Ubuntu's idea better

[caseih]

Saying it's not a Java environment is strictly true, but really just a detail. The fact that the engine is called Dalvik and that it's internal structure and bytecodes are different from the JVM is not really relevant to my point.

I see no reason why it is reliant on posix to work. That's just an implementation detail. Dalvik certainly could be ported to, or implemented on other kernels and libc's. Would take work, but MS has a lot of smart people. They shouldn't tout android compatibility as the main feature (IBM, OS/2 and Windows 3.1 come to mind), but as a secondary feature (have your cake and eat it too).

Emulation being easier? Maybe, but not viable. But I repeat. There's no technical reason Android need only run on a Linux kernel. All Android needs is a dalvik implementation and a supporting layer (which happens to be provided by linux and a libc).

Re:I like Ubuntu's idea better

[caseih]

Talk about pedantic. Look, I'm merely speaking in general terms. No I am not fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between a bytecode virtual machine and what Java does. I understand it very well. Everything you spout is tied to linux only as a matter of implementation.

I'll try again a third time here. What I'm saying is that (and that wasn't even my main point! -- see ubuntu on android), contrary to your assertions, "Android" (the dalvik engine, the runtimes, etc) do not *have* to depend on Linux or anything posix. That is simply a matter of implementation. Of course I know the *code* as Google has released is not portable. And of course there is no compiler flag.

But that doesn't change the fact that to run android apps on another platform, you simply need the android system (VM, supporting libraries, pick your pedantic terms... anything above posx) implemented on the other platform. And guess what? It's already being done. Whether or not it will be viable I am not saying. But yes, Android (dalvik + android system) is in fact ported to and running on Windows right now (not Windows Mobile or Windows Phone). And it's not in an emulator. It's a native port of the VM (and, since you keep being pedantic, the entire android system). The result is similar to running in an emulator, but a whole lot faster. Blackberry was planning on doing this as well, though the port would be easier as QNX is posix.

Slashdot doing advertorials now?

[BenJeremy]

Chinese tablets have been doing this for ages. I have a 7" tablet I bought a few years ago that ...GASP... boots THREE Operating Systems!! Android, Windows CE, and Linux.

This is absolutely nothing new or unique. Quite frankly, I'm astonished this is being covered by Slashdot like this, unless they are getting advertising revenues from the HK vendor that sells it.

Re:Slashdot doing advertorials now?

[Noughmad]

Why not post the name of your table?

Bobby. Aren't all tables named Bobby?

Nook Color

[xlsior]

If you have an old Nook Color (the eReader model, not the Nook Tablet) you can easily triple-boot into the stock B&N Android build, cyanogenmod Gingerbread, and cyanogenmod ICS simply by inserting a microSD card with the respective OSes. Either built it yourself, or pick up one of the countless pre-built memorycards from ebay.
Sure, It's three different android builds, but it's multi-boot nonetheless

In addition to that, the HP Touchpad has been able to dual boot between WebOS and Android for a long time now.