Linuxpaq - Linux on the iPAQ

[Tycho Morgan]

<a href="http://columns.pocketnow.com/content.cgi?db=periodicals&id=22">http://columns.pocketnow.com/content.cgi?db=periodicals&id=22</a><br /><br />I am a Windows user. All of the computer and computing devices that I’ve ever owned run have run some sort of Microsoft operating system, with the brief and only exception being the Visor that I used for a short time 8 months ago. This isn’t to say other operating systems don’t impress me; Mac OS X and Linux have always interested me, I just don’t really have the stomach to switch. As a result, I have an admiration for anyone who uses Linux, especially those folks who put it on their iPAQs. <br /><br />I’ve watched with mild interest as folks, mostly centered on <a href="http://www.handhelds.org/">Handhelds.org</a>, have taken Linux distributions and installed them on their iPAQs. Not the kind of thing I’m likely to try, but interesting nonetheless. In any case, when I saw that <a href="http://www.pocketnow.com/">Pocket Now</a> had an article on using Linux with your iPAQ, I eagerly read it. <br /><br />While their have been many developments in the world of Linux PDAs, it seems to me that all the offerings aren’t really ready for prime time. Functionally, Linux solutions appear to be right on par with Pocket PC specifications; however, when you take into account the fact that symbolization solutions, third party software, and lack of drivers for available hardware, the equation changes slightly. Pocket PC 2002, even with all of its shortcomings and quarks, seems—at least in my opinion—much more appealing.

[James]

however, when you take into account the fact that symbolization solutions, third party software, and lack of drivers for available hardware,

Linux suffers from this problem no matter what you put it on. Compatability issues have to be resolved too. In addition to lots of Windows systems, I manage quite a few Linux systems. I'm tired of seeing things like "doesn't work on kernel x.x.xx" which happens to be the newest kernel, or some software from a particular vendor won't run on such&such a distro, which I don't run.

[Tycho Morgan]

however, when you take into account the fact that symbolization solutions, third party software, and lack of drivers for available hardware,

Linux suffers from this problem no matter what you put it on. Compatability issues have to be resolved too.

I think this is especially relevant in Hand Held Linux. There isn’t as big of a development community, and there is less customizability in Pocket PC hardware. If you have a modem or network card that doesn't work on a PC running Linux, it's not all that big of a deal. Annoying yes, but you pop out to to CompUSA and spend 20 bucks on a new modem or network card. On a Pocket PC, there may not be another modem that is compatible with your device, or 802.11b network card, or stowaway keyboard.

On the software front, I have yet to see Handheld Linux applications available for download, and I get the feeling that Handheld Linux isn't compatible with Pocket Linux..

Cheers,
Sam

[elemeno]

Sure some have seen this already, but I thought this might be interesting.

http://www.sharp-usa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,699,00.html

[Russ Smith]

Most of the folks I know who are using Linux are either rabidly anti-Microsoft or have in mind some specific applications and don't mind recompiling the kernel a few times to make it work. Obviously that's not the typical end-user. Sharp may "get it right" by having Linux out-of-the-box and by covering the hardest part of hand-held Linux with their Installation Manager GUI and by courting application programmers but I still think Linux itself has a long way to go before it's ready for the general public.

[James]

still think Linux itself has a long way to go before it's ready for the general public.


Until it passes the Mom and Grandmother tests, it will never gain any more than a small percentage in the desktop market.

[JoeThielen]

I'm a hard-core Linux person, as well as very anti-Microsoft biased. But I do agree with pretty much every comment posted here. I use Linux, and I love it. I work for a non-profit company, and the only reason we have the computer network that we do is because of Linux.

But you're all correct, driver support is hard to do on this scale. Although I've seen on the Symbol site that there is a group working on drivers for the Wireless Networker, who's to say that they'd compile on the version of Linux for the PocketPC hardware. I echo what was said above.

One the the major things that kept me from installing Linux on my E-125 when I first got it was lack of a GPS application for it. The versions of Linux for the PocketPCs seem to be coming up with the basic functionality of a PIM, but not the 'geek' applications.

And that's what I love about the PocketPC. GPS, multimedia, wireless, etc...

I'd be supremely happy if they'd just get an ActiveSync port over to Linux... 8O :)

[burmashave]

I've been watching the Linux pocket PC developments closely because I am frustrated with the quality of the PPC OS and installed applications. PIE is almost useless for surfing. Inbox is buggy with respect to POP. Word and Excel are barely compatible with the desktop versions in terms of formatting. ActiveSync requires an engineering degree to keep it running. The OS sucks up memory at a fast rate, and my PPC needs rebooting on a very regular basis.

The root of my frustration is that third party developers do no seem to be interested in picking up the slack in these areas. I expect MS to provide a platform and third parties to perfect the software. That's why I'm watching Linux PDA developments. Correct me if I am wrong -- it's my understanding that Linux applications would be easily portable (recompiled) to a Linux PDA.

So that's the trade off I see. Pocket PC will have better hardware compatibility; however, that might be worth trading for a much better selection of software.

I'm not a serious Linux user; however, I do have a Linux box that I play with.