Should Slackware have a team dedicated to mobile devices?

Originally Posted by dugan Adding to the above, the other advantage of desktop PCs is expandable storage. And most people who need expandable storage just buy dedicated NAS storage devices. Many of which have upnp/dlna media streaming capabilities built right in.

The usual storage expansion for the home user is external USB storage, which connects to almost everything a home user has around.

In five years, I'll be swapping out the flux capacitor on my smartring while I supervise a team of robots who monitor my 250-tablet data center.

Originally Posted by ottavio I would like to bookmark your post and read it in two years time just to have a laugh.

BUMP because it's been two years.

So what's the situation now? We have the impending release of two new desktop operating systems (Windows 10 and SteamOS), the new Macbooks have just been announced, and, well, I'd say desktops and laptops aren't going anywhere.

Apart from that, the situation is about the same as it was two years ago, and most of what was said in the posts in this thread still apply.

I think the reason desktops and laptops are still around is mobile devices are artificially limited in what they can do. Everyone is following the Apple model since it sells so were stuck with mobiles running a different os that has limits on what it can do so it can't replace the desktop/laptop. The one thing Microsoft has done right (besides using windows) is making the same os on their desktop/laptop and mobile devices. with the modularity of Linux there is no reason we can't have the same kernel on both with a different WM on each. We should have been doing this a decade ago. Mt tablet is very close to replacing a laptop but I'm at the mercy of developers to port applications over when I should just be able to download and make like usual.

As I have mentioned before duting this type of discussion -- the moment you remove what you term "artificial restrictions" from these devices they become, to all intents and purposes, desktops. Be that plugginh them into screens and keyboards or having fancy dongles to allow connection to cameras and storage devices. These additions are, for the most part, in some way chained to table tops and power chords. Once you get to this point your phone or tablet is just a "compute module" with a fancy screen but since desktops are still more powerful and flexible, in the main, than phones and tablets why not just have your phone/tablet and a desktop?

Originally Posted by enine I think the reason desktops and laptops are still around is mobile devices are artificially limited in what they can do. Everyone is following the Apple model since it sells so were stuck with mobiles running a different os that has limits on what it can do so it can't replace the desktop/laptop. The one thing Microsoft has done right (besides using windows) is making the same os on their desktop/laptop and mobile devices. with the modularity of Linux there is no reason we can't have the same kernel on both with a different WM on each. We should have been doing this a decade ago. Mt tablet is very close to replacing a laptop but I'm at the mercy of developers to port applications over when I should just be able to download and make like usual.

Many Android devices get locked in by the manufacturer to a single OS which over time can be very limiting. This might not still be true with Android 4.x and above as much, but many Android 2.2 and 2.4 devices can not work with Cyanogenmod 9+ due to driver problems and hardware requirements of the OS itself.

Windows and iOS have some limits but not as many. Many iOS devices can run the latest iOS releases, the same as many Windows Phones.

Not only this, but Microsoft and Apple also exert stricter quality control standards in the stores. Bad applications often are removed if they get bad reviews too often. Google kinda lets anyone post anything, and there are multiple stores, so quality of apps will vary.

Plus the fact that desktops and laptops have some level of the ability to swap out certain parts makes them have a longer lifespan. The tablet and smartphone are handy, but they are not a desktop/laptop replacement on any level.

Originally Posted by enine The one thing Microsoft has done right (besides using windows) is making the same os on their desktop/laptop and mobile devices. with the modularity of Linux there is no reason we can't have the same kernel on both with a different WM on each. We should have been doing this a decade ago.

Isn't Canonical trying to make that happen with Ubuntu?

I didn't try to buy an Ubuntu phone, but I'd be lying if I said I had no interest.

Originally Posted by 273 As I have mentioned before duting this type of discussion -- the moment you remove what you term "artificial restrictions" from these devices they become, to all intents and purposes, desktops. Be that plugginh them into screens and keyboards or having fancy dongles to allow connection to cameras and storage devices. These additions are, for the most part, in some way chained to table tops and power cords. Once you get to this point your phone or tablet is just a "compute module" with a fancy screen but since desktops are still more powerful and flexible, in the main, than phones and tablets why not just have your phone/tablet and a desktop?

because I keep hitting a limit on my phone/tablet. My phone tablet should let me do what I need to do, my desktop is simply faster/more powerful.
For example both IOS and the stock google calendar on android can't sync my whole calendar. now I don't need my whole calendar, I just need longer than either of those two mobile OS's can sync so recurring events don't drop off. So I had to setup a different calendar sync system to make it work where any popular linux based calendar had no limit. I synced my whole calendar to both my Android devices and it worked fine.
Same with any given app. I have a reasberry pi and a BeagleBone Black and I can go to sourceforge and download app foo and make it on my desktop and make it on the RPi or BBB and use it. But even though my phone and tablet have the same hardware as a RPi or BBB I can't just copy the source over and make it, it has to be rewritten to operate under the android layer on top of the kernel. So now what if I saved files on my desktop I can't use them on my tablet? This isn't how its supposed to work and as I mentioned before we were close to having what I envision in 1999, the whole iphone app model threw us back a decade.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 Many Android devices get locked in by the manufacturer to a single OS which over time can be very limiting. This might not still be true with Android 4.x and above as much, but many Android 2.2 and 2.4 devices can not work with Cyanogenmod 9+ due to driver problems and hardware requirements of the OS itself. Windows and iOS have some limits but not as many. Many iOS devices can run the latest iOS releases, the same as many Windows Phones. Not only this, but Microsoft and Apple also exert stricter quality control standards in the stores. Bad applications often are removed if they get bad reviews too often. Google kinda lets anyone post anything, and there are multiple stores, so quality of apps will vary. Plus the fact that desktops and laptops have some level of the ability to swap out certain parts makes them have a longer lifespan. The tablet and smartphone are handy, but they are not a desktop/laptop replacement on any level.

I'm referring to limits as to what it can do. Neither IOS or the stock android calendar can sync my whole calendar. neither ios or stock android could edit my ODF files. I have to go hunt down apps for that and wait for soem developer to write an android wrapper around whatever app i want to use.

Originally Posted by dugan Isn't Canonical trying to make that happen with Ubuntu? I didn't try to buy an Ubuntu phone, but I'd be lying if I said I had no interest.

Possibly. Buy then why can't I choose my own distro. I can on any other hardware I can buy. Take my tabet, no phone therefore no phone drivers. Its almost the same hardware a other systems I have so why can't I run my own distro on it rather than another "os" on top of a crippled kernel.

Originally Posted by enine Possibly. Buy then why can't I choose my own distro. I can on any other hardware I can buy. Take my tabet, no phone therefore no phone drivers. Its almost the same hardware a other systems I have so why can't I run my own distro on it rather than another "os" on top of a crippled kernel.

What makes you think that comuters were initially this way? Drivers for devices have always been locked down and hidden with NDAs. We just have a lot of smart people who are able to figure out how to get these devices to work without any help from the manufacturer (although, some manufacturers are better than others). The same is happening with phones and tablets, but it's a slow process, and with how fast phones/tablets are being pumped out, developers aren't as likely to spend as much time on a phone that they'll replace in a year or two vs a desktop they might keep for 4 or more years (I built my current desktop back in 2008).

Back to the "topic", I'll never replace my desktop, at least not within at least the next decade. I just can't imagine trying to do the work I do on it without my dual 28" monitors. Not to mention all the server functions it also performs for my HTPC downstairs. I don't use my desktop or laptop as much for normal internet browsing, since my phone is always on me, but there are plenty of times where I don't want to do the research I'm doing on my phone, so I'll pull out my laptop.

Originally Posted by bassmadrigal What makes you think that computers were initially this way?

Because it was that way on my commodore 64, My Amiga, My IBM XT, etc.

Originally Posted by bassmadrigal Back to the "topic", I'll never replace my desktop, at least not within at least the next decade. I just can't imagine trying to do the work I do on it without my dual 28" monitors. Not to mention all the server functions it also performs for my HTPC downstairs. I don't use my desktop or laptop as much for normal internet browsing, since my phone is always on me, but there are plenty of times where I don't want to do the research I'm doing on my phone, so I'll pull out my laptop.

I'm going back to having two systems now. I've always used small light laptops but now that a tablet can do almost all want by working around some of the limits I don't necessarily need to carry a laptop. In fact I just bought my first >12" laptop ever. I went from a 12" Compaq Armada to a 12" Dell Latitude c400 to an 9" Asus eeepc to a 12" Dell latitude D420 and now the 14" Dell Latitude so I could have a nice fast more workstation like.

My little arm servers help out now by keeping the data synced between them.

OT:
I actually have one more to upgrade to be able to switch over to 64bit, that one D630 will run 64bit but performance was so bad I had to go back to 32bit. Once its been upgraded I'll plan to switch. Maybe Slackware 15 or 15.1. I've been in an enterprise IT shop for over a decade now where they have long term plans for all the various software they use so I've done the same at home. Splitting my one portable laptop into a tablet and more powerful workstation will met me move to 64 bit on the workstations long term. I could switch 3 of the 4 over now but then I'd have to keep up with and slackbuild stuff for 32 and 64 bit as well as arm. So I'm trying to stay on arm and 32 bit then move the 32 to 64 all at once.

Originally Posted by enine Because it was that way on my commodore 64, My Amiga, My IBM XT, etc.

I believe that your memory is incorrect on that matter.

Originally Posted by Richard Cranium I believe that your memory is incorrect on that matter.

Take the IBM PC/XT for example, since its the closest architecture to what we have today. The reason it became a standard is because it was open, and the specs were published so you could create your own hardware and write your own drivers for said hardware. Thats what we need to go back to.

Well, the Apple II "[...] was open, and the specs were published so you could create your own hardware and write your own drivers for said hardware." In fact, the Apple II provided the disassembled boot ROM code so that you could read it.

And that's why you could take boards from your Apple II and use them in your IBM PC/XT.

Oh wait, you couldn't. The underlying hardware was different.

I won't say much about the IBM PC/XT clones that came out back then which ran almost everything that an IBM PC/XT could.

Apple decided with the original Mac to stop providing that type information for free. The type of information that you are writing about is mostly available for almost any system out there; you just have to pay for it by buying an SDK of some type. And whatever you made with the SDK for one device may or may not work with other devices.