Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Jan 2009 22:06 UTC
Netbooks run either Windows or Linux, and both are readily available in shops all over the world. The Linux variants chosen by several netbook manufacturers are usually derived from desktop distributions, and obviously, Windows is a desktop operating system as well. However, netbooks have small displays, and both Windows and GNOME/KDE and some of their applications aren't always suited well for such an environment. Enter Android, Google's Linux-based phone operating system. It is suggested that Android-based netbooks will appear on the market in 2010, maybe even sooner.
Thread beginning with comment 342197
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Android is not Linux, and not an OS
by danieldk on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 09:04
in reply to "RE: Android is not Linux, and not an OS"
Member since:2005-11-18
It's not clear why Android would be any more interesting on a Netbook than Linux or Windows. Seriously, why?!? What can't I run on Linux or Windows that I can run on Android?
Because, frankly, Linux on netbooks currently sucks. Every cheap Asian brand uses it's own semi-proprietary Linux distribution that is a fork of Linpus, Xandros, or something else. There is no compatibility, no consistency, whatsoever.
That's fine for our tiny contingent of the population who can install/roll our own stuff and put Ubuntu or what the heck we want on it, but that's not going to work for the majority of users out there. So, if they can choose between Windows XP (which they know) or a private distribution that requires typing commands in a terminal, even for installing basic functionality, they will use Windows.
Another thing to keep in mind is, is a netbook a small computer or phone-ish gizmo? Linux on a netbook as a small computer is not really interesting for most consumers: Microsoft dropped the prices on XP for netbooks, hardware specs are going up, and people can install pirated/non-pirated Office on their netbook. Why would they not use the same system as their home computer? Whereas, if we see a netbook as an mobile gizmo (forgive me for using that word), it does not need to be functionally equivalent to a home PC. But it requires a consistent interface, an easy manner to get or purchase applications, and a single consistent API for game and application vendors to write applications for the platform. Think iPhone, but differently. Android is a good contender for providing a software layer for such products.
Consistency is also one of the reasons why I, even though I am a daily C++ user, prefer to see Android restricted to Dalvik-based languages (Java, Scala, etc.). Having multiple runtimes, widget toolkits, and package managers is not going to help anyone in that space.
Edited 2009-01-03 09:06 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
Android is not Linux, because so far Google has refused to allow developers or users to directly use any of the Linux underpinnings.
You are locked into a non-standard Java jail.
Google seems intent on re-inventing all the Java API's Sun spent the past 15 years on, and re-developing, or at least wrapping, all the GNU/Linux libraries and app frameworks of the past 20 years.
Best example: The utter lack of usable video playback on the G1, even though I can apt-get almost every codec known to mankind in my G1 Debian install.
Android on a Netbook is not exciting - it is not an actual platform, just a Java app with some plugins. It COULD be a contender if Google comes to their senses. I hope they do.
It's not clear why Android would be any more interesting on a Netbook than Linux or Windows. Seriously, why?!? What can't I run on Linux or Windows that I can run on Android?