Why Aren't There More Open Source Solutions for Mobile Devices? (increment.com) 90
A Microsoft software engineer working on open-source technologies recently wrote that "you can find an open-source implementation for (almost) anything.
"But the mobile landscape is a notable exception." While there are some open-source success stories, Android being a massive one, only a handful of major companies rule hardware and software innovation for the devices we carry in our pockets. Together, Apple and Samsung hold over 50 percent of the world's market share for mobile devices, a figure that underscores just how few dominant players exist in the space. Numbers like these might leave you feeling somber about the overall viability of mobile open source. But a growing demand for better security and privacy, among other factors, may be turning the tides, and a host of inspectable, open-source solutions with transparent life cycle processes are emerging as promising alternatives....
Along with the open-source messaging app Telegram, Signal has garnered attention as a more privacy-focused alternative to apps like Facebook Messenger. The browser Chromium and the mobile game 2048 are other noteworthy examples, as well as proof that although open-source apps aren't the norm, they can be widely adopted and popular. For example, over 65 percent of mobile traffic flows through Chromium-based browsers...
Despite the many open-source technologies available to help build mobile apps, there's plenty of room to grow in the user-facing space — especially as more people recognize the value of having open-source and open-governance applications that can better safeguard their personal information. That growth isn't likely to extend to the hardware space, where the cost of building open-source implementations isn't as rewarding for developers or users — though we may start to see more devices that allow people to choose individual hardware modules from a variety of providers.
The article does cite the open source mobile hardware company Purism. And there's plenty of interesting open source software for mobile app developers, including frameworks like Apache Cordova (which lets developers use CSS3, HTML5, and JavaScript) and a whole ecosystem of open source libraries. But it all does raise the question...
Why aren't there more open source solutions for mobile devices?
"But the mobile landscape is a notable exception." While there are some open-source success stories, Android being a massive one, only a handful of major companies rule hardware and software innovation for the devices we carry in our pockets. Together, Apple and Samsung hold over 50 percent of the world's market share for mobile devices, a figure that underscores just how few dominant players exist in the space. Numbers like these might leave you feeling somber about the overall viability of mobile open source. But a growing demand for better security and privacy, among other factors, may be turning the tides, and a host of inspectable, open-source solutions with transparent life cycle processes are emerging as promising alternatives....
Along with the open-source messaging app Telegram, Signal has garnered attention as a more privacy-focused alternative to apps like Facebook Messenger. The browser Chromium and the mobile game 2048 are other noteworthy examples, as well as proof that although open-source apps aren't the norm, they can be widely adopted and popular. For example, over 65 percent of mobile traffic flows through Chromium-based browsers...
Despite the many open-source technologies available to help build mobile apps, there's plenty of room to grow in the user-facing space — especially as more people recognize the value of having open-source and open-governance applications that can better safeguard their personal information. That growth isn't likely to extend to the hardware space, where the cost of building open-source implementations isn't as rewarding for developers or users — though we may start to see more devices that allow people to choose individual hardware modules from a variety of providers.
The article does cite the open source mobile hardware company Purism. And there's plenty of interesting open source software for mobile app developers, including frameworks like Apache Cordova (which lets developers use CSS3, HTML5, and JavaScript) and a whole ecosystem of open source libraries. But it all does raise the question...
Why aren't there more open source solutions for mobile devices?
Age of the platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Mobile is still young by that standard. Give it time.
Re:Age of the platform (Score:5, Informative)
Mobile operating systems use more open source then proprietary desktop operating systems ever did...
You have iOS which is based on Mach and BSD, Android which is based on Linux, Webkit based browsers etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile operating systems use more open source then proprietary desktop operating systems ever did...
Isn't that the problem? They use the open source bits and they suck away the life from independent fully open source solutions. When Linux was starting there was quite a hard barrier with the commercial companies rejecting it and Microsoft campaigning against the GPL(v2). That gave enough space for Linux to develop as a complete independent solution without any commercial components.
The E foundation is building a complete independent ecosystem [e.foundation] but they have much more to build to match the competitors. Ma
Re: (Score:3)
Mobile operating systems use more open source then proprietary desktop operating systems ever did... You have iOS which is based on Mach and BSD, Android which is based on Linux, Webkit based browsers etc.
The use of Open Source in mobile OS's is a red herring. The fact that all those Android phones out there have Open Source skeletons means nothing to the vast majority of phone owners who still get shafted by privacy invasion, advertising, etc.
Yes, there are alternatives, but they're not viable for most. I'm reasonably tech savvy as these things go - but a few months ago I bricked a Pixel 3a trying to get LineageOS installed on it. I just recently succeeded in the same quest with a Samsung phone - and it was
Re: (Score:2)
How is this possibly modded insightful? iOS is literally derived from MacOS, a DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM. Android is based on Linux (and Java), both existing the DESKTOP space before mobile. Webkit as an Apple DESKTOP development based in a Linux DESKTOP platform.
Absolutely every example here contradicts the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
PCs are 50 years old. It took 30 to get to Linux. Mobile is still young by that standard. Give it time.
Uh...as far as most people are concerned, personal computers came about in the late 80s, therefore Linux was a few years behind them (early 90s). Mobile has been around for 20+ years (Symbian dating to like 98). Android being from 07...it's not that young...
Re: (Score:3)
That argument isn't exactly fair. If you want to count PCs being from the late 80s due to popularity, the equivalent argument would be 2008 or so for mobile- the arrival of iOS. Symbian smartphones are the equivalent of Amiga- a few enthusiasts, but not in the mainstream.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The ZX80 came in the beginning of the 80's, that's what started the real affordable personal computer movement. Linux started in the beginning of the 90's. That coincides with the 386 processors which together with the Motorola 68000 processors were the most feasible processors for consumers to get their hands on for running a multitasking OS. Before Linux it was only some well off hobbyists that got their hands on outdated hardware that were able to run Unix or other multitasking operating systems.
But for
Re: (Score:2)
>Uh...as far as most people are concerned, personal computers came about in the late 80s,
Er no. the late 70s. My Apple 2 was built in 1979.
Utility, Not Age (Score:4, Insightful)
PCs are 50 years old. It took 30 to get to Linux.
True, but there was a need for Linux: it was a free UNIX implementation that let you provide all the things that traditionally only servers could provide. Anyone who wanted to access their machine remotely over the network, run a network server etc was far better off using Linux over Windows. Indeed, it has proven so useful that Windows now has a Linux subsystem!
With mobile apps even the price advantage of Open Source is significantly blunted by the large number of "free" (but typically ad-riddled) apps.
Re: (Score:2)
VMS was stolen from DEC by Microsoft
Only if you think people belong to corporations, i.e. you support slavery. Because Microsoft hired DEC engineers fair and square, and paid them fair wages. Otherwise they'd not have left DEC.
along with Alpha technologies stolen by Intel to create the Pentium chipset
K7 had more in common with Alpha AXP than did the Pentium of the day. You really are off your fucking nut. Now we know why you didn't log in to post this garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a step in the right direction. Now if they would just take away the option... because let's face it, the 1/10th of 1% of AC comments that are worth reading (and I'm probably being generous here) are far outweighed by what might euphemistically be known as "the other ones"
Re: (Score:2)
"Only if you think people belong to corporations, i.e. you support slavery. Because Microsoft hired DEC engineers fair and square, and paid them fair wages. Otherwise they'd not have left DEC."
Correct, and these people were only hired by MS after they failed in pitching VMS follow-ons within DEC. DEC cannot claim Cutler's knowledge and experience after it explicitly rejecting it. Also, while VMS was popular in some areas, NT never appealed to those areas.
Re: (Score:3)
"VMS was stolen from DEC by Microsoft"
It was not.
"Alpha technologies stolen by Intel to create the Pentium chipset"
It was not.
"DEC went bankrupt"
It did not.
"their core technologies were stolen to create the Wintel monopoly."
They were not.
It should also be mentioned that the "Wintel monopoly" was thriving when DEC was also successful. DEC designed PCI 1.1 with bridging, something that happened early in Alpha's life and well into the "Wintel monopoly".
This is what happens when people think that /. opinions a
Re: (Score:2)
As though the two choices were Windows and Linux. Were you living then?
Linux didn't invent the open source "UNIX implementation".
Re: (Score:2)
There was a period of time where instruction restart on page fault and a memory management unit were not easy things to achieve with the microprocessors of the time. E.G. The 68000 could not support instruction restart. One unix vendor made a machine with two 68000s one running half a step behind the other, so when you hit a page fault, you dropped the front one and the other 68000 became the front one. Allowing instruction restart. This was so it could run Unix. The 68010 fixed that. But easy support for d
There are multiple options (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Tizen exists but has not gotten any support. Samsung has been using it for years but recently abandoned it on their smartwatches for Google. It is open source and almost mature. If anyone wants to pick it up as a platform it is open source. [tizen.org]
Why would anyone care above LineageOS [lineageos.org] which has good device support and allows getting a complete mobile system? Isn't the way that tizen and a bunch of other corporate OS attempts (Sailfish?) always wanted to start from scratch with complete ownership of the name and system a big part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel made Moblin which was basically Linux + Clutter - AMD support. Moblin begat Meego. Meego begat Tizen. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and why would anyone want to be involved with that? Especially given that it is at best described as you have done with "almost mature". It's had three tries to become mature so far, why would a fourth try be any better? Let it die.
I don't have a lot of apps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it would be nice to be able to buy a phone without all the cludge pre installed soundslike there are some manufacturers selling such motorola,apple, hp, ibm, allcan suck off low hanging fruit lazy asses the lot of them
If you buy a phone from a carrier you deserve what you get (crapware)
If you buy a phone direct from moto it has no crapware on it, and if it does it's a user app and not a system app so you can remove it.
If only you knew what you were talking about
Mainly because Microsoft killed it off⦠(Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
NokiaÃ(TM)s Meego was absolutely a viable and innovative open source alternative
Meego was a half-assed attempt that arose from Intel's half-assed attempt Moblin, which deliberately disincluded AMD support. It's not clear why anyone thought that was a legacy worth pursuing, but they were wrong.
It would have made more sense to keep updating Familiar Linux than to dick around with Meego. Familiar was working and complete with two full DEs, one based on GTK and one based on Qt.
Re: Mainly because Microsoft killed it offâ&a (Score:2)
Re: Mainly because Microsoft killed it offâ&# (Score:2)
Because FOSS and privacy are still niche concerns. (Score:3)
Geeks tend to forget we are a relatively tiny minority.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is quite happy using FOSS. That doesn't mean users are interested in joining a social movement.
Open source versus free software licenses (Score:1)
The business model of many startups is to expand an existing open source idea or cocktail napkin business plan and keep the internal components proprietary. It's also how middle managers create "big visions" that ensure their next raise but doom the project. My favorite right now is "CentOS 8 Stream", designed to turn the CentOS users into beta testers for new RHEL changes, and the ansible "Let's rename half a gig of 140 add-on modules, only three of which anyone uses, as the ansible package, not put any of
F-droid (Score:4, Informative)
Re:F-droid (Score:4, Insightful)
This is where I get almost all my apps. I don't live a very app-y lifestyle, but there are apps for most tasks on F-Droid.
When I first got a smart phone, I was shocked at the sorts of simple utilities people tolerate ads in. Ads in a flashlight app? W T F?! In my opinion you have to be a moron to accept that, it's a hardware LED, the whole app is only 5 lines of code past the Java boilerplate. On F-Droid there are a bunch of choices.
Notes, maps, file manager, advanced calculator, who needs ads and spyware? Why the fuck would a flashlight app need to read my phone ID and contact list? Most of the apps on F-Droid don't need any permissions at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I get almost all my apps. I don't live a very app-y lifestyle, but there are apps for most tasks on F-Droid.
And beyond F-Droid there are sites like APKMirror and APKPure that are good sources of apps for sideloading. And don't neglect simply pulling apps off an existing phone and sideloading them onto a new one. I'm doing that on my new-to-me refurbished Samsung A4. The oldest app I have is the version of Sound Hound that came with my ancient HTC Evo 3D; this older software version is lighter and much less sucky than newer versions, and I'm now using it on my 4th smartphone.
Now if only I could find a ready-to-ins
Re: (Score:2)
LineageOS 15 is the one that's based on Oreo. 18.1 is based on Android 11.
But there's no need to use those other sites for sideloading. Aurora Store [f-droid.org] lets you download all the gratis apps from Google Play.
Because hardware costs money (Score:2, Interesting)
The article is glossing over the biggest obstacles, which is cost. Of course, software also has a cost, but a dedicated team of developers can crank out quality opensource software in their spare time at (relatively) low or no 'cost'. Hardware, on the other hand, requires not only a lot more skill, but also capital (and usually quite a bit) to built at scale.
The article does mentions Purism, but neglects to mention that the Librem 5 is $899 [shop.puri.sm], or the 'premium' USA-sourced/built' version is $1999 [shop.puri.sm].
You're payi
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a load of hokum, if the hardware wasn't locked down, there is a long line of us happy to provide the software, what few parts aren't already written.
Just complete specious bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe that there's anything locked down about the Librem hardware and even OnePlus phones can have have the operating system replaced without losing the guarantee so there are standard good hardware options that people could be delivering systems for if that was true. In fact, looking at LinageOS, they already are.
Re: (Score:3)
But generally you can't run your banking apps on those. In Denmark you need government approved 2-factor, where the newest version MitID is limited to stock non-rooted firmwares.
Suddenly you need two devices and possibly a second SIM so you can handle SMS authentication. It is not terribly practical.
Re: (Score:1)
But generally you can't run your banking apps on those. In Denmark you need government approved 2-factor, where the newest version MitID is limited to stock non-rooted firmwares.
Suddenly you need two devices and possibly a second SIM so you can handle SMS authentication. It is not terribly practical.
Sounds mega frustrating. My bank uses a proper hardware token which obviously makes it quite a bit more secure and also works for the PC / web version of their site. How do Danish Banks cope with normal PC access otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
You can request hardware tokens, but the vast majority of Danes don't. They just use the 2FA app on their phone. The phone-based 2FA works for both web and app logins.
Re: (Score:3)
What is needed is laws to say that hiding your bugs behind NDAs is criminal misrepresentation, and perversion of the course of justice, in as much as you can't sue them for selling you duff products because they have hidden the evidence, therefore the NDAs have no
Data collecting backend (Score:2)
Because apps need to have a data collecting backend.
Android is only open-source by name (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you can get the code, yes you can create your own device and run vanilla AOSP on it. But in practice, those benefits never apply in the real word because of the way Google structured their business relationships with phone manufacturers and locked down the rest of the ecosystem.
That's why you have to play a - usually losing - game of cat and mouse with hardware manufacturers to root your Android phone (you shouldn't have to do that if it was open)
If you do manage to root your phone, there's a good chance your front camera or some other device won't work because it uses a proprietary driver.
Your banking app will refuse to run on a rooted phone. Or you have to play another game of cat and mouse to convince it that it is.
Your phone will be unrooted at the next OTA update, mening you have to be careful NOT to let updates through. Meaning you don't have access to updates. Nobody wants that.
Yeah, Android is open-source. But Google made it a steep uphill battle to run it as anything other than a nasty closed-source OS with heavy vendor lockdown. And that's exactly what they wanted: they certainly don't want you to have any freedom on they surveillance platform, and the only reason it's open-source in the first place is so that they don't have to pay a dime on licensing. You didn't really think they went open-source out of idealism, right?
Re:Android is only open-source by name (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has actually taken steps to make OSS Android more feasible on devices, for example the newer drivers will run across multiple Android versions. This means you can update the kernel and still have drivers. This was the big show stopper for most OSS Android, and Google fixed it, so clearly they're not trying to wall off as hard as you think they are.
The big problem isn't Google, it's the handset manufacturers. Few of them actually support bootloader unlocking. One which does is Moto. Their devices aren't perfect but they tend to offer reasonably priced devices (As well as expensive ones) and they also offer bootloader unlocking so long as your carrier doesn't prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
> so long as your carrier doesn't prevent it.
Which Verizon does.
Hopefully Right To Repair nukes this practice.
Re: Android is only open-source by name (Score:3)
I brought my own device to vz and am using it right now... Unlocked moto x4 running lineage and no gapps. So they can't stop me :)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't there Android smartphones and tablets that are open source friendly?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is why I run Moto despite their devices not being the best. If you buy an unlocked phone (direct or reseller) then the bootloader is unlocked, you can oem unlock it from day one, there is no bundled crapware, moto actions is top notch (chop for flashlight, twist for camera, face down for do not disturb... and it actually works) and you can run Lineage or whatever. I am running Lineage on a Moto X4 without google play, it's solid. I have Magisk installed for root and for an addon that lets me limit
Mobile HW is horrible (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many issues
1/ Mobile chips need closed source drivers to work, no alternative.
2/ Android is kind of open source, but there is no real community. Just flung over the wall every release by Google
3/Using this in say a LineageOS release takes time, but even then to make this fully functional to all apps you need Google Play Services, that immediately turns on all the phone home functionality. Workarounds are far from perfect.
4/ Even here they are trying to remove as much GPL code as possible.
5/There is no standard mobile platform like with a PC, not at the same level anyway.
6/I like the look of PureOS but the phone is pretty extensive, there is no cheap way to get into this.
7/installing a free(er) OS on a phone often means applying to the manufacturer to unlock it and this sometimes takes days {Xiaomi), can not be totally reversed (Samsung) and always involves jumping through hoops.
So yes the mobile market is a warning as to what PCs could turn into in a few years. Vendor controlled and locked down HW.
Re: (Score:1)
6/I like the look of PureOS but the phone is pretty extensive, there is no cheap way to get into this.
There is, it is called Pinephone [pine64.org] and they are making a pro version now.
patents on baseband protocols (Score:2)
the main issue I see is that the technologies like everythings around 5G is encumbered with a thicket of patents.
Re:patents on baseband protocols (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why we can't have a fully OSS phone, but the baseband processor which handles that stuff has its own system image and it doesn't prevent the main system from running OSS. So yeah, you'll "always" have that potentially malicious closed-source blob in there so long as you want to connect to the cellular network, and often it also controls booting so there's that... but it doesn't explain why we don't have more phones with an OSS OS, aside from the baseband image.
What does is lack of demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if FOSS can get along with Nvidia then it can get along with baseband.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, when hell freezes over? FOSS still doesn't get along with nvidia, from my experience...
Re: (Score:2)
The story I heard and will keep repeating until I hear otherwise is that nvidia got into bed with Microsoft around the original Xbox in a way that they can't really release sources of geforce drivers ever. However they have released useful tegra oss drivers, for as far as I'm aware every generation of tegra.
Re: (Score:2)
... but it doesn't explain why we don't have more phones with an OSS OS, aside from the baseband image.
What does is lack of demand.
I think that lack of demand is primarily driven by three factors: a lack of awareness on the part of the average user, the high barrier to entry that currently exists to installing, say, LineageOS, and the policies of carriers, banking app authors, etc. All of these factors reinforce each other to keep Open OS's in a geeks-only ghetto niche.
If, say, the FSF and the EFF were to get together and really push publicly for Open Source phone implementations in the same way Right to Repair advocates have pushed in
Walled Gardens (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire mobile space is designed to be walled gardens. Hardware, operating systems, app stores, every level.
Re:Walled Gardens (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire mobile space is designed to be walled gardens. Hardware, operating systems, app stores, every level.
basically, yes. (you forgot FCC licensing as well)
in 2003 i reverse-engineered *NINE* HTC and Compaq Ipaq smartphones. HTC Blueangel, Wallaby, Universal, hw6915, and several others.
it was absolute hell.
i learned that, basically, these devices are extremely sophisticated. the HTC Universal was basically a micro-laptop. they ran out of 110 pins of GPIO on the PXA270, so had to put in their own special custom memory-mapped peripheral ASIC (we named it asic3), with an additional 64 pins of GPIO. however the device was *so* sophisticated that they ran out of GPIO on that, too, and had to use the 16 pins of GPIO on the Ericsson 3G Modem which could only be used via special RIL/GSM serial commands, that *also needed reverse-engineering*.
there were over *SEVEN* audio outputs on the HTC Universal, via the Akai 4641 Audio IC: headset, clamshell front speaker, clamshell-reversed front speaker, stereo audio speakers, bluetooth, and car-audio socket.
it did not use the PXA270 built-in framebuffer (it wasn't fast or big enough): it used an external ATI embedded Graphics memory-mapped IC.
when explaining all of this to "x86 desktop PC linux developers" back in 2003 they were completely overwhelmed and freaked out by the complexity. "but why would you even have that, why is the PXA270 framebuffer not sufficient?" - even the fact that these questions were being asked at all (the answer is: because the High Tech Corporation's engineers, whom we can't speak to because they're under NDA, decided to use ATI Graphics, that's why) was extremely insightful.
the OSes required for this type of extreme hardware sophistication are just... brutal in their underlying complexity as a result. remember the OpenMoko? and how they failed to create an OS+phone even with USD 10 million?
combine that with the fact that it takes USD 250,000 to develop such hardware from scratch (for comparison: Foxconn charges "only" USD 40-50,000 for a full-on ATX Motherboard design)
combine that with the expectation by users that this will be an affordable device (not with a price tag of USD 5,000 because the NREs are so high the developers have to amortise 250,000 across only 50 developers)
combine that with the fact that most hardware from the (extreme small) number of manufacturers capable of recouping those kinds of NREs is itself DRM-locked and created by GPL-violating Corporations
combine that with the FCC Licensing required (USD 50,000 per phone per Operating System Revision per CARRIER in the United States)
and you start to get an understanding of why it is that no "Free" software developer can even remotely possibly hope to get into this without some serious, serious resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good reason for the mob to develop their own phone.
Re: Walled Gardens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually worked on mobile chipsets for 20 years.
I've seen various attempts at mobile phone software stacks - almost none go anywhere. It's far more complex than you can imagine, and if you don't properly design the code, you aren't going to have something that's maintainable or works.
You can get pre-made cellular modules - a bunch of people make them from Sierra Wireless to uBlox and such, and many can get you the datasheets or you can get the documents from 3GPP, ETSI, etc fairly easily.
The problem is
Re: (Score:2)
actual WALLs on the garden
less included unused apps, increasing ability to uninstall
they make the hardware, they make the software, no finger-pointing
no carrier deals for custom software or handling things differently
My opinion: only a truly open set of hardware and software would be a good competitor to this
The masses insist on something cheap and having features . . . so Android is on "everything" but not the same, even though you get the same wrapper.
Every t
Vertically integrated solutions (Score:2)
It seems for some purposes, closed source solutions with a single "dictator" standardizing the solution is what the market wants. For example, go ahead and try to find a good open source solution to Microsoft Exchange. You can find email servers, calendar servers, contacts aggregators, etc. Yet, there is no competing open source solution for a vertically integrated solution challenging Microsoft Exchange. Perhaps mobile devices have the same issue, requires a vertically integrated solution, and such a solut
What is this, a trick question? (Score:1)
Because you might think you are the owner of such a "mobile solution", the rest of that "ecosystem" sees you distinctly differently. In short you are not the customer to the "solution providers". The telcos are, and it's their buyers that set the tone, that shape the offering, and that think a walled garden is peachy fine if it helps prop up the telcos' revenue. FOSS is not a blip on their radar, because it doesn't help sell more services. A more useful question is why android flaunts its (very limited) FOS
Easy answer (Score:1)
It costs money to get listen in app stores. A kid in moms basemess (primary source of open source coders) will not pay a monthly fee, just to make his app available for free.
Why? Because Open Source OS are secondary (Score:2)
Why Aren't There More Open Source Solutions for Mobile Devices?
Because for regular users (ie desktop/laptop) an open source operating system is overwhelmingly a secondary operating system. Either dual boot, VM or running on a secondary (retired) computer. You don't really get such options on a mobile device. Plus who would want to carry around a second device, they will still need their primary OS for their regular activities.
Because of stupid fractures (Score:2)
I mean even though most mobile phones now look exactly the same and have exactly the same peripherals and CPU cores, each one of them has a different SoC deliberately made to be incompatible with the others. Therefore any Free Software project will have to spend most of its time somehow trying to port itself onto every model. This is, in a way, similar to the CP/M days before the IBM-PC. That too had to be ported to every computer and even had to be modified when you upgraded your RAM.
As long as we don't ha
Raspberry Pi (Score:2)
LineageOS Android. The only problem with LineageOS is that hardware video decoding & encoding doesn't work -- not sure why. Somebody said it is because there is an MPEG patent that is still valid in Malaysia (it is invalid everywhere else) .. which sounds suspect.
Depends who procures (Score:2)
Desktops, laptops, mobile devices, servers & super-computers tend to have different categories of people making procurement decisions:
On servers & super-computers, the procurers are IT specialists with deep knowledge of the systems they require. This is where FOSS tends to rule by a large margin. Linux tends to be the de facto standard operating system, which then makes building FOSS on top of that a no-brainer.
On desktops & laptops procured in bulk, it tends to be governments (by far the bigges
Pine64 has a several open mobile products (Score:2)
Plus the WiFi only tablets, (though could be modified for LTE / Cell service):
Pine64 tends to focus on the hardware, attempting to make as much of the hardware open as possible. This does not mean they have open source CPUs, most are ARM type, though some of the r
No good business model for end-user applications (Score:2)
Most mobile software falls into the category of "end-user applications" and most people writing them are actually trying to make money. Also, supporting such apps does require some amount of money, especially if they need any services that require a server-side component provided by the developer.
Whenever you ask any open-source advocate how to make money off open source software, they usually think it terms of software written to support something else that costs money, or something involving "providing pa
Simple Mobile Tools (Score:1)
Is that even possible? (Score:2)
Isn't mobile network technology essentially patent encumbered? Is it even possible to have a fully open hardware mobile device that can connect to the major networks?
Market (Score:2)
The "mobile" ecosystem is geared tward people who load up on Facetok crap, and gossip about Suzy sleeping around with the whole town. Most don't even know what an "open source" is.
PC/Mac is generally geared tward people who have a higher IQ and use their machines to get work done.
So guess which platform is going to get the focus for open source projects.
App Stores (Score:2)
Writing mobile apps results in code that is not accessible to the hobbyist programmer and requires a complicated build environment, beyond a Linux box with the GCC compiler tool chain installed.
Even if that challenge is overcome, most mobile devices require code to be submitted to an app store to be able to be installed on a mobile device (a pretty high hurdle for a casual programmer), and if you want to 'side load' your app onto a phone, that is a nontrivial exercise as well.
Brand Recognition and Support (Score:2)
Market maturity and developer free time. (Score:2)
Linux didn't come when someone noticed the need for UNIX and decided to fill that need, it came when hardware was powerful and cheap enough that you could repurpose systems for unintended things, and there was enough unallocated talent to build interesting systems. Linux wasn't the only such system, but it got traction and saw things through. Mobile is still soaking up all the free developers, to the point where they're still able to make money using subpar developers. Over time, it will become harder to
Pinephone (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Telephone System Security (real or imagined) (Score:2)