Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The year of the Linux tablet is, like the year of the Linux desktop, destined never to arrive.
Quote:
That doesn't mean we won't see Linux on a tablet, but you'll see Linux on a tablet the way you see it on the desktop - clinging to a tiny percentage of the market.
In fact the best evidence that there's never going to be a year of the Linux tablet is that it doesn't even look like there's going to be a year of the Windows tablet.
Microsoft's Surface tablet effort is not, according to early numbers and a plethora of anecdotal evidence, flying off the shelves and hardware manufacturers don't seem to be rushing out the Windows 8 tablets.
So far, despite Microsoft's best efforts, the tablet world is still very much orbiting the twin stars of iOS and Android.
...and yet the Linux kernel is dominating the mobile phone universe in the form of Android. :-)
From the article:
Quote:
The same thing will happen if you just port Linux over to a tablet - even the new GNOME Shell and Ubuntu Unity interfaces have not really been designed for touch. Pair a Linux tablet with a hardware keyboard and mouse and you'd have a great little three-piece laptop replacement. Take away the extra hardware and you've got a recipe for frustration. The different form factor requires more than porting the OS to different hardware, it requires rethinking how everything works.
Android and iOS, whatever faults they may have, at least got this right. And therein lies the real problem for desktop Linux tablets - Android is already better.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,078,419 times
Reputation: 3995
Android uses a Linux kernel. That makes it Linux. Elements like Gnome, etc., are just shells, and most of the APIs you see are layers above the kernel. You're absolutely right that Unity and friends are not designed for touch, but ... they weren't designed for touch. So replace them with something else. That's precisely what the Android folks did.
I think it's a semantic argument. Of course, there's no reason why someone couldn't put something like Android on top of a BSD kernel, either. There's more than one side to the FOSS operating system universe.
Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic, but the ChromeOS is Google's answer to a desktop oS
Chrome OS isn't much more than a browser. You can't run Photoshop or Illustrator in a browser. A desktop version of Android would be capable of running anything you want, just as long as the developers port their software to it.
I think we'll see more tablet/notebook hybrids over the next couple years. ASUS has a few and I'm sure others will do the same. (Google ASUS Transformer).
I've run the x86 Android. It was a year ago and it was just ok.
It wasn't optimized for desktop use. A desktop version of Android would look and work like a desktop OS, but would also be able to run Android apps that we have today. Maybe something like Linux with Bluestacks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
