Database Users

PPC w/o MicroSoft?

So I've been having a discussion in another thread regarding the use of older versions of MSOS's on PPC. That spawned a question on my part:
Is there a development group here somewhere that is working on a Linux OS, or another OS for PPC?
Linux will run on just about anything, its' lightweight OS needs little memory and cpu power. So how hard would it be to design a light Linux based OS for a PPC?
Obviously it would take a group of people, much like those groups developing Linux distros and programs.
I think there is memory to be saved, and speed to be had. And if someone were smart enough to wrap a dialer and vendor agnostic connectivity around it, it would take off.
Any interest in this?

http://wiki.xda-developers.com/index.php?pagename=Xanadux
or android
or
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...H_en-GBGB243GB243&q=linux+for+pocket+pc&meta=

Wow, I'm disappointed.
There are hundreds of WM5 & WM6 custom ROMs' being developed by hundreds of top notch developers...... and only ONE Linux port?
very underwhelming...

You may also want to check out OpenMoko (http://www.openmoko.org) or just try and put together your own.

Splitter said:
Wow, I'm disappointed.
There are hundreds of WM5 & WM6 custom ROMs' being developed by hundreds of top notch developers...... and only ONE Linux port?
very underwhelming...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a whole different thing. All those roms you are talking about are just modifications of an existing OS.
The linux port amounts to building an OS from scratch, and it's a lot harder.

edzilla said:
It's a whole different thing. All those roms you are talking about are just modifications of an existing OS.
The linux port amounts to building an OS from scratch, and it's a lot harder.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Actually porting Linux to an HTC device wouldn't be so bad. Some people have found out how to flash ROM's theoretically without needing a bootloader even.
The problem really boils down to drivers for Linux. We can't even get proper video drivers working with the Kaiser under Windows Mobile (the proper drivers were never included, so video output is slowwww) though the hardware supports 3d acceleration! HTC denies our requests for hardware specs to develop our own. And this is trouble we're having with drivers for Windows!
Really it boils down to this hardware. This type of hardware being proprietary as you can get. You've got processors and controllers that are highly proprietary and the vendors are tied in to 100 different non compete non-disclosure agreements and can't provide specs. Even the qualcomm chips borrow code from broadcom -- which means qualcomm can't publish how those portions of their chips work! Microsoft then licenses code from these vendors with promises not to share source. HTC licenses code from broadcom and qualcom swearing not to publish it. Etc etc...
Now, your a Linux developer. How do you integrate drivers in to your kernel when the chip instruction set isn't even documented? Control codes aren't published? Reverse engineering is the only way, which can take years. Developers here have learned simple controls such as to change LED's or discovered the standard interface for USB/SD cards. That's about it.
It's hard for an open source OS to survive in a closed-spec hardware world. PC's are open and well documented and very standard. However, every phone is different, and different production runs may even have significant changes in internal hardware design.
It's really a waste of time to seek Linux on mobile devices until hardware becomes standardized. Which is never because companies like qualcomm and broadcomm via and others are not fans of open source. This is the market and those who dominate it.
If this saddens you, it should -- but it's just the way it is.

What is possible and what is not, Andorid model vs IPhone model

Dear members of the forum,
I've been trying to decide which path to take to get started with mobile development on modern devices. I've done some windows mobile development and quite a lot j2me development in the past, and I am very keen to explore these modern platforms.
However, I'm trying to understand the opportunities in Android platform and IPhone, and I need your help to complete some of the missing bits.
Android does not seem allow native code access to hardware for obvious reasons. It appears you can write native libraries, but they can't access hardware either.
IPhone on the other hand, seems to offer compiled code access to hardware, making it easier to port things like vlc player.
On the other hand, Android gives you the OS source code, and you can add custom modules to kernel. I've never been deep into kernel hacking, other than applying a few patches every now and then.
Do you think it would be possible to exploit the open source nature of Android, to have compiled code access to hardware? I was thinking about developing software at the kernel level, using low level access, and then exposing a certain amount of control to UI layer.
Do you think this approach as a possible alternative to native access to device hardware (apis), as in IPhone and windows mobile?
I am not worried about deploying my code to other phones, these will be projects for personal purposes only, but I would like to know if I can find a way of squeezing performance of the say, HTC Hero to the max by using native code, rather than Java.
For a more solid example, how would you go ahead if you were to start a project for porting VLC Player to HTC hero? Would you say this is not possible?
Kind regards
Seref

Some peoples compiled mplayer for android probably helpful for your decision
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=575500&highlight=mplayer

[Q] Do phone manufacturers use proprietary Android operating systems?

I'm looking at the decompiled source for Phone.apk from my HTC Incredible(2.2) and I notice that the number and contents of the files don't match that of the decompiled source of the Phone.apk I built from the Android open-source project(I made no changes to the source). For example, here's a list of subclasses found in the PhoneApp class from the Phone apk on my Incredible:
PhoneApp.RadioThread
PhoneApp.ContactInfo
PhoneApp.QueryHandler
PhoneApp.CbQueryHandler
PhoneApp.MediaButtonBroadcastReceiver
PhoneApp.PhoneAppBroadcastReceiver
PhoneApp.TimerCallback
PhoneApp.WakeState
PhoneApp.ScreenTimeoutDuration
But the list of subclasses found in the PhoneApp class from the Phone apk I built myself is much shorter:
PhoneApp.MediaButtonBroadcastReceiver
PhoneApp.PhoneAppBroadcastReceiver
PhoneApp.WakeState
PhoneApp.ScreenTimeoutDuration
I'd assumed that all Android OS-based phones used the same code - is that not the case?

AFAIK, no they don't use propietary operating systems. But yes, each manudacturer builds their own apks just like each manufacturer has its own launcher.

Heck, the Chinese decided to use Android to make Ophone OS... Apparently they don't like the Android name. :-D

kschang said:
Heck, the Chinese decided to use Android to make Ophone OS... Apparently they don't like the Android name. :-D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they wanted to avoid licensing GApps support

The Android system itself is open source so it can't be made "proprietary" per se, but different manufacturers make different proprietary customizations to the different elements in the ROM they build.

Just to comment on the license angle:
The Linux kernel that Android uses is licensed under the GPL this means that anyone shipping a binary must provide the source. This allows you to produce an AOSP (Android Open Source Project) build for your device.
The AOSP itself uses the Apache license, meaning that source does _not_ need to be provided when selling a modified version.
Upshot is: its easy to get AOSP compiling on commercial devices. But you'll (almost) never get Android framework modification released as source.

The best working example of that would have to be HTC Sense. Its inner most workings are inserted into the Android library source itself. Good luck getting HTC to release the source of that puppy, or the mods they made to AOSP source to get it working.

I think I’m having a Gene Amdahl moment

Recently, there’s been a lot of misinformation in the press about Android and Google’s role in supporting the ecosystem. I’m writing in the spirit of transparency and in an attempt to set the record straight. The Android community has grown tremendously since the launch of the first Android device in October 2008, but throughout we’ve remained committed to fostering the development of an open platform for the mobile industry and beyond.
We don’t believe in a “one size fits all” solution. The Android platform has already spurred the development of hundreds of different types of devices – many of which were not originally contemplated when the platform was first created. What amazes me is that the even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications.
As always, device makers are free to modify Android to customize any range of features for Android devices. This enables device makers to support the unique and differentiating functionality of their products. If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements. (After all, it would not be realistic to expect Google applications – or any applications for that matter – to operate flawlessly across incompatible devices). Our “anti-fragmentation” program has been in place since Android 1.0 and remains a priority for us to provide a great user experience for consumers and a consistent platform for developers. In fact, all of the founding members of the Open Handset Alliance agreed not to fragment Android when we first announced it in 2007. Our approach remains unchanged: there are no lock-downs or restrictions against customizing UIs. There are not, and never have been, any efforts to standardize the platform on any single chipset architecture.
Finally, we continue to be an open source platform and will continue releasing source code when it is ready. As I write this the Android team is still hard at work to bring all the new Honeycomb features to phones. As soon as this work is completed, we’ll publish the code. This temporary delay does not represent a change in strategy. We remain firmly committed to providing Android as an open source platform across many device types.
The volume and variety of Android devices in the market continues to exceed even our most optimistic expectations. We will continue to work toward an open and healthy ecosystem because we truly believe this is best for the industry and best for consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-think-im-having-gene-amdahl-moment.html

For Android TV, Do companies have to strike a deal with Google?

This is something I have been told by a few other people but haven't found any evidence to support or disprove this.
Do larger companies (for example DirecTV Now, Vue, Sling TV) have to strike a monetary deal with Google in order to be allowed to publish their app on the Android TV play store?
The only thing I found was in some development guidelines on requirements for the android TV platform which stated that the app had to support lean back and have remote control support (then of course a few flags or indicators in the app to say it is compatible with android TV). From there you just publish the app as normal.
I ask this also as a secondary motive as what do we as Android TV users have to do to garner more support for the android TV platform and convince developers to make their apps for Android TV as well. I'm unsure if Google themselves are the issue by not releasing sales numbers for Android TV devices and then companies see that as a deterrent as then they don't know how large of an audience they are making the app for and see it as not worthwhile. I am hoping with the release of the new shield TV and soon the new Google Android TV that Android TV gains more support... but with no exact numbers does it do the community any good to set their voice out there and say hey develop for this platform.
It especially annoys me when An app is developed for android, and for the FireTV platform (which is android) and yet...that app isn't deployed on Android TV... go figure.