![]() |
General questions about Linux
With all of the talk lately about Maemo and Andriod and other Linux based OSes, I just had a few newbie questions.
Is Linux technically an OS or a type of computer language, since there are so many different Linux distros? If Linux is an OS, then how is it that there are so many different kindsof Linux distros? And on that note, what is the difference between Debian, Symbian, Maemo, and Android, since they are all based on the same Linux? If a device has one OS, is it possible to install another different OS on there (ie. Motorola Droid comes with Android, can it be flashed to run Maemo)? If not, why is that? I've been reading up on the Maemo vs. Android debate and a recurring theme is that Maemo is more "open." How is Maemo more "open" when both Android and Maemo are Linux based, which is completely open? Lastly, how is it possible that Linux is capable of running on both x86 architecture devices and ARM architecture devices? Isn't the x86 and ARM instruction set completely different? And if I'm not mistaken, Linux is also used in PowerPC machines too. Thanks for your help!:) |
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: General questions about Linux
Was just writing a response but Laughing Man beat me to it.
Only things to add are that Symbian is based on EPOC not Linux, and that while Android utilises the Linux kernel it does not use the same GNU libraries as most Linux distros. http://www.linux.com is a good place to start if you want to find out about Linux. |
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
I can see Nokia's incentive for creating Maemo for its own devices, but what incentive does Google have for creating Android, since they technically don't build their own phones? If they are charging OEMs for Android, isn't that also against the free and open source nature of Linux? If Android does lack the root feature, how are people able to write apps for it? Since Maemo is more open than Android, I'm pretty surprised that Android seems to be taking off more so than Maemo is. Aside from Android being backed by Google, are there any other reasons why it is more prevalent in new devices (ie. why aren't others adopting Maemo)? Thanks again for the great info guys!:D |
Re: General questions about Linux
The reason I'd prefer Maemo to Android (regardless of whether this has to do with openness or not) is the fact that Android is its own special environment on top of the Linux kernel, while Maemo is much more like a regular Linux distro.
I think the GNU parts of a Linux distro are important. Infact, maybe one should call it GNU/Linux, when referring to the operating system as a whole and not just the kernel... :) |
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: General questions about Linux
I'm sure Android on its own, can be pretty open too, but maybe they can lock it down that way for particular phones/carriers, while Nokia will give the user root for Maemo 5 out of the box?
One reason Android is growing more than Maemo at the moment is probably that there are plenty of phones that run it and has been for some time, while the N900 is the first Maemo phone, the first Maemo 5 device and was just (barely) released. |
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
Quote:
And there's nothing that says you can't charge for Linux. It's just under the GPL you have to provide the source code (meaning anyone could also recompile it and distribute it). Quote:
|
Re: General questions about Linux
Quote:
Android is free in that anyone can download and compile their own version of Android and can distribute that version as they wish. If you use one of those distributions of Android you can have root access on the phone if you wish. Manufacturers are free (i.e. at liberty) to install Android on their phones whether or not they pay Google anything. However, although the operating system is free, some of the applications are not. If you distribute your own version of Android you have to omit or substitute some of Google's applications. One of the non-Google distributors of Android (cyanogen) recently ran into trouble because he was including Google's closed-source applications in his distribution. The most obvious missing link if you don't use a Google distribution is the marketplace app: you can still install software without it, but you cannot install paid applications. That may not be a problem if you are a phone manufacturer: just have your own version of the marketplace which only allows access to your own little walled garden of apps. That's probably quite appealing for some phone providers. As to how they can do this: All Android applications must be digitally signed. This allows other applications or servers to identify the author or the application (or rather the person who compiled it). Even if you have the source for Google's marketplace the servers will not identify a copy you compile as being a valid Google copy of the application, so it only gets to see the free apps. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:26. |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8