Running Android On Netbooks 203
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."
Downside... (Score:5, Informative)
As much as so many people seem to hate X (many for no particularly well found technical reason I will add, some have technical justifications, but many just think it's 'old'), Android would not be an improvement in display or UI technology for desktop usage:
-No inherent remote display capabilities. X has this in it's very foundation. There was no reason for a cell-phone/embedded OS to implement such functionality in the contexts Android target, so this wasn't a bad decision.
-Multi-window operation. Again, the target is applications where the resolution, screen size, and interface methods do not lend themselves well for multiple windows. As such the paradigm is single application.
-Extending from the above, no advanced window management/compositing. The inter-application effects and utility with 3D acceleration found in Compiz, Aero, and Quartz have no reason to be there, despite providing productivity benefits (at least in the compiz and Quartz variants).
Do not get excited about the prospect of any arbitrary display technology displacing X, regardless of the underlying technical merits in the given context. Try to understand the hard technical reasons for your X hate, and do a bit of research to make sure they are not FUD or that the Xorg team isn't already addressing your concerns in a reasonable manner.
From what I've tried, Android is a great platform for the environment it targets. It achieves this by not trying to be a one-size fits all solution. Usage styles that work on the desktop do not scale to handheld devices. By the same token, good handheld UI does not scale to Desktop.
Re:Hurm. (Score:3, Informative)
has been done before (Score:5, Informative)
oh well, only two weeks earlier .... :-)
seriously, here is the link to a similar building-android-for-the-asus-eeepc-701 [virtuallyshocking.com] project, with detailed instructions on how to do it yourself
Re:Hurm. (Score:4, Informative)
Have you tried Netbook Remix? I have and I just did not get on with it, mainly because its been stripped down too far. Especially annoying was a lack of reiserfs support, which I'd taken to using due to the ability of ext2/3 to lose everything on an sd card under certain circumstances.
But Some people must like it. Surprisingly OSX runs quite well on a netbook, I took a triple booting hdd from a laptop and found the osx and ubuntu installs both booted up fine (Xp didn't but thats MS for you) I soon got wireless working on OSX using an Edimax usb card with a ralink 2500 chipset. It's certainly responsive enough but then again the Macbook Air has a 1.6 dual core CPU so a 1.6 atom isn't that much poorer (the image had been used on a 1.4 Celeron without issues).
Now we find that Android is also a possibility for a netbook, isnt that cool. So much choice, ok there are issues to be resolved for OSX (apart from legal ones) and also for Android and less so for Ubuntu and other Linux versions. XP works quite well, 2000 is good but no webcam driver.
quick google finds
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2008/12/22/atom-support-now-in-opensolaris/ [intel.com]
and http://masafumi-ohta.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] This second link has a picture of a EEE running opensolaris.
How can you not love having lots of options available, I am so tempted to build a collection of images to use with my netbooks.
choice is good very good :)
Re:This will be a very good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, just add the repositories in Synaptic. But of course, the CLI method is actually easier to explain.
Open Android App stores already exist? (Score:2, Informative)
AndAppStore.com for one, and their client can be bundled with any distro so why would you want to create another one?
Re:Downside... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes.
xrandr -s 1024x768
or your favorite graphical utility for KDE or Gnome.
That's been around for a while, by the way.
Re:Hurm. (Score:3, Informative)
He's talking about an app like Pandora, which records any sound source, sends it to a sever, and attempts to recognise the song. You can't do that or anything similar via SMS. SMS services require a radio station or place to have an agreement with the service, it's not the same thing.
Re:Downside... (Score:3, Informative)
But, how else are you going to get your fancy new Dell laptop to interface with a 1980s sync-on-green 17" 350lbs Sun console monitor? :)
That's why the 99.99999% of linux users who have VESA-compliant plug-and-play monitors manufactured in the last 25 years have configuration files that contain modelines.
Re:Hurm. (Score:1, Informative)
Compare this to Android, where the user doesn't have root access and is locked out the filesystem. The Android developer is similarly fucked -- she can't just package his application as a file and send it off to whoever but must submit it for approval and then, if the overlords deign to approve, can only distribute it through their app store.
It's ironic, in some sick and twisted sense, that an OS built on open source affords the user and developer so much less freedom than one built on closed source by the much-maligned Microsoft.
You can install any Android app you want, just need the .apk and check the "Unknown Sources" box in the settings. And once you sign up as a developer you can release your apps on the market without any approval.
Re:Hurm. (Score:3, Informative)
*cough [andappstore.com]* *cough [handango.com]* *wheeze [google.com]*
Re:Hurm. (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't stupid, you haven't bothered to understand what it's for. The signing simply authenticates apps as coming from a particular person or organization, it doesn't make any assertions about that person or organization. The point is to ensure one developer can't "upgrade" his competitors app with a broken version, etc. It's all about sandboxing.
Mod me down (Score:3, Informative)
I was mistaken about some key facts. I apologize for the inconvenience (and for having been modded Insightful despite being incorrect).
I still have some strong misgivings about the Android software dev model (including the fact that you can't make a proper tethering application because the API doesn't expose the packet gubbins) but this appears to be OK.