|
    Comments on: Linux on the LifeDrive and T3
Detailed Comment View (113 Total Comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PIC is not responsible for them in any way. login or register for free in order to post comments.  RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.legodude522 @ 12/15/2005 7:49:09 PM #
Homebrew all the way! Palm m125 December 25, 2002 to March 24 2004 > palmOne Zire 71 March 24, 2004 to March 31, 2005. Tapwave Zodiac 1 April 18, 2005 to November 2, 2005 > palmOne Zire 72 November 2, 2005 to present RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/15/2005 8:08:10 PM #
GPE *is* a GUI... If Access doesn't deliver, Palm should panic. I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
No, GPE is a palmtop environment. It can have many GUIs. Currently there is the default one and maemo. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/16/2005 5:26:30 AM #
Um, no. Maemo is *not* a GPE GUI: From the maemo web site: (http://www.maemo.org/platform/docs/maemo_exec_whitepaper.html) In many ways maemo could be compared to the GPE (http://gpe.handhelds.org) project that aims to provide Free Software GUI environment for palmtop/handheld computers running the GNU/Linux™ operating system. What makes maemo different is the ease of development it provides to the handheld application developers and a new user interaction design based around task based usage referred to as the Hildon User Interface and Hildon Application Framework. Believe me, HUI/HAF are not at all like GTK+ ;)
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
OK, I should have said Hildon was a GPE GUI. Maemo is the Hildon Application Framework (including user interface) on top of GPE. Matchbox window manager, the X server, GTK+, D-BUS, GConf and GnomeVFS are all components of GPE. Similarly, Palm could build an application framework (PalmOS user interface + compatibility layer) on top of GPE, if PalmSource fails to deliver on time. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
If it's so easy for Pam to just whip it together in case Access fails, then Acess will not fail. $300M+ is not pocketchange and I doubt Access is going to lay an egg IF Palm can put a hack-team together to do this. Access is surely still the hope. Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Access isn't building PalmLinux using an existing palmtop environment. They're building a Palm OS more or less from scratch and integrating the NetFront browser, which is a very different proposition. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
When you say "integrating the NetFront browaser", do you mean a Windows-style IE integration (as in, retaining the familiar UI and just providing quick browser access) or something much more drastic, like having an almost completely browser-based device? Tim Carroll Your friendly customer service robot (and big Treo fan) RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
More like AJAX, except the shell would be the browser, and the POS apps would run locally. The menu, launcher and windowing system and desktop would however be web technology based (DHTML, Javascript, DOM etc) and the hardware would be controlled via ECMA. http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051121172729132 Its funny, but there was talk a long time ago about how SUN was going to make the OS into "An Insufficiently Debugged Collection of Device Drivers ... " but this is exactly what Netfront is doing to Linux. This could be an amazing springboard for an always connected mobile device. Kind of like ActiveDesktop on steroids. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
When you say "integrating the NetFront browaser", do you mean a Windows-style IE integration (as in, retaining the familiar UI and just providing quick browser access) or something much more drastic, like having an almost completely browser-based device? Well, those two options are actually very similar. IE integration into Windows goes far beyond just quick browser access. Trident (the IE layout engine) is an integral part of rendering the Windows desktop. So in a sense Windows is a browser-based OS. Surer posted this link a while ago which gives some insight into ACCESS's plans: http://www.access-us-inc.com/pdf/access_in_news/LinuxWorld_09_04.pdf but there was talk a long time ago about how SUN was going to make the OS into "An Insufficiently Debugged Collection of Device Drivers ... " Surur, wasn't it Netscape who said that? (about Windows) RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Sam H, yes, of course they were talking about Windows, but its ironic that Linux is much more suitable for the role. I could not find an attribution for the quite, but I knew it was between Netscape and Sun. Sun's slogan of course was "The network is the computer", but I believe they have dropped that now. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 2:38:59 AM #
> OK, I should have said Hildon was a GPE GUI. Why would you want to say something that wrong? Maemo and GPE aren't related. They're competing approaches.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 2:41:18 AM #
> Access isn't building PalmLinux using an existing palmtop > environment. They're building a Palm OS more or less from > scratch and integrating the NetFront browser, which is a very > different proposition. They're not? When did they stop? PalmLinux is PalmOS on top of a Linux kernel. Access adds Netfront to that -- something they've already done for PalmOS, anyway.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Sam H, yes, of course they were talking about Windows, but its ironic that Linux is much more suitable for the role. I could not find an attribution for the quite, but I knew it was between Netscape and Sun. Sun's slogan of course was "The network is the computer", but I believe they have dropped that now. Since one of Linux's big problems is a lack of device drivers, I don't think I'd agree with you there. I seem to recall the quote was by Marc Andreesen, co-founder of Netscape Communications, boasting that Netscape browser and Java would reduce Microsoft Windows to a "poorly debugged set of device drivers". Ironically it was this quote that finally led to Microsoft deciding Netscape as a "threat" and crushing them. If Andreesen had kept his mouth shut Netscape might still be around today. Such is the price of hubris. As for "the network is the computer" slogan, yes Sun have dropped it. I think these days it's implicitly obvious. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Maemo and GPE aren't related. Nokia sponsored the 1.0 release of GPE and the port of GPE to GTK + 2.0. Nokia contracted the developer of Matchbox, GPE's Window Manager, to get it Ready For Prime Time so it could be used in maemo. Nokia has contributed to GnomeVFS, the file system abstraction library GPE uses, and sponsored the development of GnomeVFS using D-BUS, the message bus system GPE uses. Maemo and GPE use the same X-Server, Window Manager, toolkit, message bus system and file system abstract. Still think maemo and GPE aren't related? RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
> Access isn't building PalmLinux using an existing palmtop > environment. They're building a Palm OS more or less from > scratch and integrating the NetFront browser, which is a very > different proposition. They're not? When did they stop? November 14th. PalmLinux is PalmOS on top of a Linux kernel. Access adds Netfront to that -- something they've already done for PalmOS, anyway. I think you're being disingenuous, Marty. Bundling NetFront with Palm OS would be easy, but that's not what ACCESS are doing. They're integrating NetFront's layout engine into the OS itself, which is much more ambitious. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
from where i can download this software ????????? please give me the link .. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
SamH wrote: Access isn't building PalmLinux using an existing palmtop environment. They're building a Palm OS more or less from scratch and integrating the NetFront browser, which is a very different proposition. So different, in fact, that there's really no reason for ACCESS to have acquired PalmSource at all if that was their plan for Palm OS. NetFront not a replacement for Palm OS
ACCESS has just published a letter to Palm developers on the PalmSource web site that seems to be aimed at quashing the rumors that SamH and others are bandying about (Palm OS being replaced by a NetFront-based GUI): http://www.palmsource.com/developers/letter.html It's nothing terribly new, but this part is interesting: If anything it sounds like ACCESS hopes to broaden the reach of Palm OS to devices outside of phones and PDAs, rather than collapse it to the phone space as some have suggested. Note that there is no reason that ACCESS should care at all about the existing base of Palm developers if the new API is going to be based on web technologies like ECMAScript and DHTML. They should instead be appealing to web developers. Instead they've repeatedly said that the existing 3rd party developer community is one of the main assets that made the acquisition so valuable to them. ACCESS most definitely is doing interesting stuff with NetFront to enable it to deliver applications in the form of content (http://www.access-sys-eu.com/dynamic_menu.html) but there's no evidence that this is supposed to be some kind of replacement for Palm OS. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
"Access isn't building PalmLinux using an existing palmtop environment. They're building a Palm OS more or less from scratch and integrating the NetFront browser, which is a very different proposition." So different, in fact, that there's really no reason for ACCESS to have acquired PalmSource at all if that was their plan for Palm OS. Beersie, I would love for you to explain to me how ACCESS could integrate NetFront into Palm OS without acquiring PalmSource? RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
ACCESS has just published a letter to Palm developers on the PalmSource web site that seems to be aimed at quashing the rumors that SamH and others are bandying about (Palm OS being replaced by a NetFront-based GUI) Beersie, find me anything in that letter that contradicts what I've said. If anything it sounds like ACCESS hopes to broaden the reach of Palm OS to devices outside of phones and PDAs, rather than collapse it to the phone space as some have suggested. I haven't suggested that. I hope they do broaden the reach of Palm OS. Note that there is no reason that ACCESS should care at all about the existing base of Palm developers if the new API is going to be based on web technologies like ECMAScript and DHTML. That makes no sense. If ACCESS are introducing a new API then they should care a lot about the existing base of Palm developers. They should care about migrating them to that API. they've repeatedly said that the existing 3rd party developer community is one of the main assets that made the acquisition so valuable to them. I'm sure it is. And nothing I've said contradicts that. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
That letter is extremely contentless. The main conclusion anyone can draw from that is that they dont want to Osbourne their current licensees. Regarding the Netfront OS, Netfront would be the window manager / launcher etc, not the actual apps, hence the ongoing need for developers. I wonder however how useful most Palm apps would be in a set top box. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 2:44:57 PM #
> Still think maemo and GPE aren't related? In the context of this discussion, yes. You claimed maemo was a GPE GUI. It isn't. It doesn't use GPE in any way. In that sense, "not related". > I think you're being disingenuous, Marty. Bundling NetFront This claim is a direct contradiction of the public plan of record. If it turns out to be true, it will surprise a lot of people in Sunnyvale and Nanjing. While I personally believe that Access will eventually decide that PalmOS is dead and concentrate entirely on NetFront on a Linux kernel, to date they have been scrupulous in claiming that NetFront is an addition to, not a replacement for, PalmOS components, including GUI. The one thing I doubt they would do would be to keep PalmOS applications but replace the GUI of those aps with Netfront's. This makes no sense at all from either a technical or a marketing point of view.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 3:08:47 PM #
>> Note that there is no reason that ACCESS should care at all >> about the existing base of Palm developers if the new API is >> going to be based on web technologies like ECMAScript and >> DHTML. > That makes no sense. If ACCESS are introducing a new API then Therein, imo, lies the rub. Palm{source|one} has catered to developers who don't want to cope with changing APIs. The famous support for 68k aps, has left PalmOS in a situation where many of its "developers" are still living on the past API. Supporting the 68k developers on a new Access API makes no sense. Getting those thousands of APs to migrate to a new API when most of them won't even migrate to the OS5 APIs seems unlikely. Meanwhile, the cynical view is that Sturgeon's law is optimistic when applied to the Palm economy, and that there are probably only a tiny handful of aps that are worth porting to the new API anyway.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
You claimed maemo was a GPE GUI. It isn't. It doesn't use GPE in any way. Maemo uses GPE's X-Server, Window Manager, toolkit, message bus system and file system abstract. How is that not using GPE in any way? This claim is a direct contradiction of the public plan of record. What public plan of record is that Marty? Got a link? to date they have been scrupulous in claiming that NetFront is an addition to, not a replacement for, PalmOS components, including GUI. Have they? I haven't seen anything that rules out replacing parts of Palm OS. Once again, got a link? Supporting the 68k developers on a new Access API makes no sense. Getting those thousands of APs to migrate to a new API when most of them won't even migrate to the OS5 APIs seems unlikely. Meanwhile, the cynical view is that Sturgeon's law is optimistic when applied to the Palm economy, and that there are probably only a tiny handful of aps that are worth porting to the new API anyway. I never thought I'd say this Marty, but you're absolutely right. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Try looking at some of Netfront's plans as they laid them out in the past. http://www.access.co.jp/english/ir/ir_shiryo/s040915_03.pdf This slide should be illuminating. I've added the arrow (to the very small box) of course. http://surur.sytes.net/netfrontplan.jpg Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
This slide may give a picture of the future Netfront UI http://surur.sytes.net/netfrontplan2.jpg http://www.access-sys-eu.com/dynamic_menu.html NetFront Dynamic Menu provides mobile operators with a comprehensive framework that enables mobile content and services to be pushed and pulled directly to and from handsets. NetFront Dynamic Menu tears down the old static mobile data model and replaces it with a dynamic model that presents mobile users with a new, dramatically compelling mobile experience that generates greater interest, interaction, and loyalty. The dynamic delivery of content as supported by NetFront Dynamic Menu is breakthrough technology that completely re-defines the mobile experience while creating new branding opportunities, business models, and revenue opportunities for mobile operators and their content partners. Some nice pics in the pdf. Surur
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 7:38:54 PM #
>> You claimed maemo was a GPE GUI. It isn't. It doesn't use >> GPE in any way. > Maemo uses GPE's X-Server, Window Manager, toolkit, message None of those things are from GPE. You may as well say mameo uses GPE's kernel as say that, since they both run on Linux. Look, for instance, at http://gpe.handhelds.org/projects/ where they even point out that the GTK+ widget toolkit is "not maintained by the GPE project" and don't list an X-server, widnow manager, tooklit, message bus system, or file system abstract as GPE projects -- because they're not. Since you've managed to confuse Gnome and GPE, and don't realize that things like D-Bus don't come from GPE, I can see how you could misunderstand what you've read about Access' plans for NetFront in a PalmOS context. > Try looking at some of Netfront's plans as they laid them out http://www.access.co.jp/english/ir/ir_shiryo/s050616_03.pdf is more interesting. While it predates the PalmSource purchase, it still points out that Access' intent is to keep NetFront OS neutral. (see, especially, page 19 and 22) I wonder what the '06 supplement will look like, though.
I survived PalmSource '05 I'm getting sick of the lies and B.S. here.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 12/17/2005 8:08:37 PM #
Beersy, your constant B.S. and the sleazy manner in which you attempt to discount the obvious is truly pathetic. As Sam H, Surur and I have indicated, NetFront's plans for PalmOS are already clear: NetFrontLinux. Marty: please cut the B.S. Your mix of facts and deception is as breathtaking as ever, but the only one you're amusing is yourself. Sturgeon's law ("Nothing is always absolutely so.") will soon come into play and likely put the screws to developers that were dumb enough to put all their eggs into the Palm Basket. Surur's links to the NetFront Manifesto + Occam's Razor + the price Access paid for PalmSource + Common Sense = the inescapable conclusion that NetFrontLinux is planned to be Access' PLATFORM of the future for mobile devices. PDAs are not the target market - cellphones are. Sturgeon's Revelation ("90% of everything is crap.") applies to PalmOS software as much as it applies to everything else. I'd probably increase that % to around 99% in the case of PalmOS software - there are probably only 300 apps worth saving out of the 30,000 released for PalmOS over the years. I've argued in the past that the advantages conferred by making a clean break and producing a fresh, modern OS would have outweighed the damage from the loss of legacy apps. (Of course, a StyleTap-like PalmOS emulator for such a CleanSheetOS™ would have lessened the risks even more.) Palm was too lazy to even consider such a revolutionary step. Now it looks like I'll get to say "I told you so".
The Palm eCONomy = Communism™ The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038 NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/17/2005 11:01:37 PM #
Oh, oh, Skippy's acting like a child again. Skippy, all you do by acting out is draw attention to the weakness of your argument. Give it a rest. Beers isn't BSing, he's saying what he believes. You disagree with his interpretation, but having a different opinion doesn't make the guy a liar, at most it makes him wrong - something you are, frequently, even if you never admit it. It's ironic that you accuse me of deception and then turn around and agree with most of what I've said, going so far as to expanding on comments I've made. I am *not* being deceptive. There's stuff I can't say because of an NDA, but I'm being as up front as I can. It is not, as far as I know, Access' plan to do anything other than what they've already said: Add NetFront to PalmOS on Linux in the same way they are adding it to a bunch of other OSes. I do think Access is going to stay with that plan. I think the more experience they have with PalmSource, the less they are going to find of value in PalmOS. In the end, I think they're going to find nothing of value in Sunnyvale, move the Linux work entirely to Nanjing, and use Sunnyvale only to do maintainence on PalmOS compatibility and older versions of PalmOS. But even then, I don't think they'll completely delete PalmOS from "NetFronLinux", and I don't think they'll waste the time, money, or effort to rewrite the PalmOS aps to use the NetFront sdk. Here's what common sense actually dicates: Access gets no value out of buying PalmSource and then throwing PalmOS away. So they'll keep it somehow. PalmSource has contracts with existing Access customers to support PalmOS. So Access will keep PalmSource/Sunnyvale around to do that support. There's no real value in the PalmOS developer's community, but it's cheaper to just give them an emulator than write them off, and it's better PR. So Access will keep PalmOS, especially the 68k ap emulator, in NetFrontLinux. But there's no real value in rewriting all those aps. So they won't. So, the plan will remain: "NetFrontLinux" will consist of NetFront -- which Access will continue to sell as its main product, plus PalmOS applications/sdk, which will be kept around as a lip service, all running on a Linux kernel, mostly developed by Nanjing. Why bother to do it any other way? It's cheap to keep a PalmOS layer around. That layer doesn't interfer with the NetFront layer along side of it and is good PR with the Palm economy folk. There's no advantage to rewriting aps to the new model -- after all, all the aps they'd rewrite already have NetFront equivalents. Why support two versions?
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Have you considered that Sturgeon's Revelation also applies to 90% of your posts too? Anyway, who cares what Sturgeon thinks - there has been any decent science fiction since Dune. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
> Maemo uses GPE's X-Server, Window Manager, toolkit, message > bus system and file system abstract. How is that not using > GPE in any way? None of those things are from GPE. OK Marty, I'll give you ONE example, just to make this REALLY simple for you: Maemo's window manager, Matchbox, is developed by Matthew Allum. get your facts straight
"Since one of Linux's big problems is a lack of device drivers, I don't think I'd agree with you there." That's just wrong. Linux has more device drivers than any other handheld or embedded OS. In addition, driver development is quite easy for Linux, in particular compared to the old PalmOS (remember all the failed WiFi add-ons?). Keep trying, Marty. Eventually you'll get it.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 12/18/2005 12:48:19 PM #
Oh, oh, Skippy's acting like a child again. Skippy, all you do by acting out is draw attention to the weakness of your argument. Keep up with the "Skippy" nonsense, Marty. It really reinforces your arguments here. The only "childish" one here is Beers who seems to be living in La-La-Land (if one makes the BIG assumption that he's not acting stupid on purpose in an effort to prop up the imploding "Palm eCONomy"). Give it a rest. Beers isn't BSing, he's saying what he believes. You disagree with his interpretation, but having a different opinion doesn't make the guy a liar, at most it makes him wrong - something you are, frequently, even if you never admit it. I initially thought Beersy was just a naïve, overly-enthusiastic developer that took the failures of PalmOS personally. I now wonder if he has a much sleazier hidden agenda. I'll leave it at that. I'm rarely wrong and my posts are all here in black and white for anyone to rebut if they choose. Whether you care to admit it or not, almost everything I've said here at Palminfocenter has been on the money. It's ironic that you accuse me of deception and then turn around and agree with most of what I've said, going so far as to expanding on comments I've made. As you know all too well, the most effective deception involves mixing in some truth so that the lies will seem even more plausible. On the fate of PalmSource/PalmOS, we do in fact agree on many points, Marty. The difference is your posts seem to imply that you feel Access is a LOT more naïive than they are. I am *not* being deceptive. There's stuff I can't say because of an NDA, but I'm being as up front as I can. Bull. And I see the NDA hasn't stopped you from backstabbing your former employer. Is revenge sweet, Marty? Does PalmSource booting your a$$ out really warrant you making a mockery of the platform? It's one thing for anonymous individuals making posts here to point out the failures of PalmSource and that the OS might have no future. For YOU - someone intimately involved with the development of PalmOS - to do that here is unfair to your former company and undermines the entire platform. Shame on you. PalmSource's money put food on your table for a year. To turn around and stab them in the back (even though they had just fcuked you in the a$$) is crass. It is not, as far as I know, Access' plan to do anything other than what they've already said: Add NetFront to PalmOS on Linux in the same way they are adding it to a bunch of other OSes. The only difference in what I'm saying is the degree of integration. As I posted at the time of the Access deal being announced, NetFront as UI: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 "So NetFrontLinux (NFL) will become a new cellphone platform competing with Symbian, Windows Mobile, etc... Wow. That's bold. Nokia should have bought PalmSource just to put them out of business! Mircosoft obviously passed on PalmSource because of its fear of getting sodomized again by the DoJ for "anticompetitive" practices. But Palm on the other hand has no excuse for letting PalmOS slip from their grasp. If Palm seriously feels they have a chance to make it long term as just a handset supplier with no control over PalmOS, they're in for a rude awakening.
This is NOT good. TVoR is NOT a happy camper right now..." I do think Access is going to stay with that plan. Riddle me this, Marty: Did "that plan" work for PalmSource? Why would Access want to continue to fund a business model that (BY DESIGN) was doomed to fail? Palm knew PalmSource would never be viable as an independent company when they orchestrated the bogus "split", but that was actually an (almost) brilliant, ballsy gamble by Palm's management. Do you REALLY think Access spent over $300 million to become the proud owners of cash-hemorrhaging business model? Get serious. http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864 I think the more experience they have with PalmSource, the less they are going to find of value in PalmOS. Way to backstab, Marty.
Jesus. Get a grip, Marty. Here we have someone who was intimately involved in PalmSource's PalmLinux efforts saying he thinks the company is worthless? Wow. Wait until Access' lawyers get a hold of you, Marty. Not even Mike Cane's proctologist will be able to put you back together again. [By the way, your statement is probably entirely correct.]
PACE or a PACE-equivalent is the only thing of value in PalmSource. Yet StyleTap managed to do something similar with relatively little difficulty. What I fail to understand is why Access would spend over $300 million to acquire a company who's assets consist of a dead end, obsolete OS (PalmOS 3, 4 and 5) a dead OS (Cobalt), a questionable OS that's two years away from being ready for Prime Time (PalmLinux) a rather weak troop of codemonkeys in SillyCON Valley (Legacy Palm employees + Holy Be Engineers), a ragtag group in Montpellier and (probably the most useful) a horde of Cheap Chinese Codemonkeys (derived from the China MobileSoft deal). Unless Access was clueless and got suckered into thinking PalmLinux was a LOT closer to going gold than it is, why pay that much money? As we both know, the PalmOS library of legacy apps and the developer community are both ridiculously exaggerated and of relatively little importance in the real world. Why didn't Access just graft their own 68K emulator onto their own NetFrontLinux if they felt the ability to run PalmOS apps was so important? I'm sure that for a fraction of the price they paid for PalmSource, Access could have gone to people like StyleTap, MarksSpace, Pimlico, Picard (TCPMP), Gavin Maxwell, David Kendall, etc. and put together a simple NetFront UI-based 68K-compatible smartphone OS that has MUCH better core apps than what comes with PalmOS. Imagine a smartphone OS that ships with the equivalent of 20 of the best PalmOS apps already integrated into the OS and yet retaining some compatibility with legacy PalmOS apps. As long as it came out before other OSes became entrenched, such an OS would be a guaranteed success. Palm/PalmSource made three tragic errors with PalmOS: first they were lazy/greedy and failed to evolve the OS, instead using the "Zen of Palm" and not wanting to compete with developers B.S. as excuses for shipping a decrepit OS year after year; then they stuck with that slow, buggy mess a.k.a. Cobalt long after it was obvious they needed to cut their losses and start from scratch; then they tried to salvage bits and pieces of code from Cobalt while maintaining compatibility with legacy apps, resulting in the FrankenPalmOS a.k.a. PalmLinux. Had Palm simply bitten the bullet in 2001 and created a CleanPageOS™ with a Linux kernel they would OWN both the PDA and smartphone markets. And this isn't a case of 20/20 hindsight either. There were many people within Palm that advocated for that very OS, but the dumba$$ execs ignored us and instead went down the pathway to doom. Here's what common sense actually dicates: Access gets no value out of buying PalmSource and then throwing PalmOS away. So they'll keep it somehow. Of course they'll keep PalmOS. Who said otherwise? PalmSource has contracts with existing Access customers to support PalmOS. So Access will keep PalmSource/Sunnyvale around to do that support. Besides Palm, the revenue from licensees amounts to a pittance, Marty. It would be easy to justify shelving decent support of licensees it Access could find a different market for a PalmOS-derived product (like NetFrontLinux). There's no real value in the PalmOS developer's community, but it's cheaper to just give them an emulator than write them off, and it's better PR. So Access will keep PalmOS, especially the 68k ap emulator, in NetFrontLinux. Ouch! Vicious, but true. No doubt PalmSource will appreciate you saying this publicly... I hope for your sake that you're posting from Mexico, Marty. Since a PACE-equivalent is easy to include, there's essentially no downside to maintaining compatibility with legacy apps. As processor speeds increase, it will be easier to brute force some performance issues related to not hooking into the ARM processor directly. And lazy developers can keep using CodeWarrior (or my personal favorite: PDAToolbox ;-O) until the end of time. But there's no real value in rewriting all those aps. So they won't. So, the plan will remain: "NetFrontLinux" will consist of NetFront -- which Access will continue to sell as its main product, plus PalmOS applications/sdk, which will be kept around as a lip service, all running on a Linux kernel, mostly developed by Nanjing. I see things as Access being a bit more ambitious, Marty. Otherwise, why bother buying PalmSource at all? NetFront needs to become more integrated into PalmOS (even more than Internet Explorer is with Windows) for this to make sense. Again, refer back to the NetFront-as-OS Manifesto that Surur was clever enough to unearth. Having NetFront as UI should not require apps to be rewritten as long as a PACE-equivalent is included. Of course, new apps would be needed if developers were to write directly for ARM and whatever environment is sittin on top of the Linux kernel. Your services were no longer needed at Access/PalmSource because the Cheap Chinese Codemonkeys have now become the only ones that matter. PalmSource USA is now redundant - how hard do you think it will be to support PalmOS 4 and 5 for the few remaining licensees? Palm has already enacted its contingency plan in anticipation of this change in focus of PalmOS. PACE-equivalents may maintain limited app compatibility in the near future, but Palm can no longer influence which path PalmOS development takes. PalmOS as we know it is DEAD. Why bother to do it any other way? It's cheap to keep a PalmOS layer around. That layer doesn't interfer with the NetFront layer along side of it and is good PR with the Palm economy folk. There's no advantage to rewriting aps to the new model -- after all, all the aps they'd rewrite already have NetFront equivalents. Why support two versions? PACE obviates the need to rewrite many apps, but even PACE is a dead end. NetFont willneed to be integrated (as UI) with whatever is sitting on top of the Linux kernel (whether that's PalmLinux or a brand spanking new OS). Palm's problem is that compatibility with their needs is now an afterthought. Yeah, splitting Palm into two companies was a REAL smart move...
The Palm eCONomy = Communism™ The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038 NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/18/2005 7:21:16 PM #
Well, Skippy, if you had a real name, I'd use it, but ever since you're naive remark about "Skippy the intern", you'll always be Skippy to me. I'll skip the childish, but colorful, ad hominem in your post, other than to point out that while you're quick to claim people are BSing or being deceptive, you've never once backed that claim up with any evidence. And no, Skippy, I don't think Access is naive. I think they misjudged the information provided to them, and that they will discover that misjudgement and correct it. But I also think that when you are doing business internationally, such things take longer than if you're local to the company you bought. I also don't think Access' management is as cynical as they'd have to be to have acted in the way you're suggesting they are. As to the self-quote: It's not in Access' interest to alienate PalmSource's customers by not delivering on PalmSource's committments to those customers. Especially since those companies are *already* customers of Access. Did the plan work for PalmSource? Yes. It got them bought, which if you look at Pat's history is what he was probably made acting chair to do. > What I fail to understand is why Access would spend over $300 You fail to understand because you fail to grasp what PalmSource's assets of interest to Access were, or how they could have overbid in the heat of an auction. You are so hung up on your agenda, that you can't interpret the data in any way that doesn't fit it, even when, as above, you can recognize that the data doesn't fit the agenda. In your quest to cast every discussion as a debate that you "win", you miss important stuff. You're colorful, Skippy, but not particularly insightful.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/18/2005 7:48:38 PM #
> OK Marty, I'll give you ONE example, just to make this REALLY > simple for you: > Maemo's window manager, Matchbox, is developed by Matthew > A quick look at the GPE team members page shows one of the By that logic, since Pavuk is developed by Marty Fouts and one of the contributes to ARM Linux is Marty Fouts, so, therefore, ARM Linux is part of Pavuk! Matchbox isn't part of GPE, Sam, It's a window manager that GPE happens to use. You're making a domain of discourse error. You're confusing _social_ relationships with _technical_ relationships. Maemo doesn't use ANY part of GPE. Maemo and GPE use some of the same underlying components that aren't part of either. Matthew Allum happened to work on one of those underlying components (so there's a social relationship) but that doesn't mean there's a technical one.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/18/2005 9:35:40 PM #
>> "Since one of Linux's big problems is a lack of device >> drivers, I don't think I'd agree with you there." > That's just wrong. Linux has more device drivers than any It's not the quantity that counts, it's the quality. > In addition, driver development is quite easy for Linux, in This is the major advantage of moving to a Linux kernel from any proprietary kernel: widely available pool of programming talent. Ironic that you should mention wifi, though. Currently, wifi is one of Linux' significant weak areas. I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 4:19:44 AM #
This thread represents everything I dislike about the PIC forums recently... certain egos hyping their own flavour of speculation as fact and slamming anyone who doesn't agree. Get real guys! The best posts here are those that present interesting ideas, evidence WITHOUT demanding allegiance! Access have room to surprise all of us yet and all I see is the vast potential for interesting new opportunities developing on the horizon. I for one wont even look at a WinMob device until Access's efforts are out in the open where I can check them out for myself. In the mean time, many of us have every reason to be optimistic about the Penguin-Powered future, especially since Access seem to be spending valuable R&D time and money on doing something useful with the platform - rather than just looking for a quick return on their acquisition. Surur / Gekko / TVoR / etc - you remind me of Harry Potter in the first two books/movies... you might have been given fancy wands and are able to talk a good game, but when it comes down to it... you sure don't seem to be packing much magic! ;) KultiVator When bitter, ex-PalmSource employees go badThe_Voice_of_Reason @ 12/19/2005 4:29:28 AM #
Well, Skippy, if you had a real name, I'd use it, but ever since you're naive remark about "Skippy the intern", you'll always be Skippy to me. That's sweet, Marty. Thanks for sharing. I'll skip the childish, but colorful, ad hominem in your post, other than to point out that while you're quick to claim people are BSing or being deceptive, you've never once backed that claim up with any evidence. Marty, your abilities to B.S. are about as impressive as your (significant) abilities to shove your foot deeply into your mouth. One would think you'd know better by now, but sadly you don't. When your reading comprehension skills improve, perhaps you'll have no need to ask for what is already sitting right in front of you. Like Beersy, you feign innocence with predictable, pathetic regularity. But somehow you fail to see how tiresome you are, Marty. Even worse, you've come here to Palminfocenter with the not-so-hidden agenda of badmouthing your former employer. Your signature sums it up perfectly: Marty Fouts I survived PalmSource '05 Disgusting. Anyone foolish enough to consider hiring you would be wise to stay FAR, FAR away based on your recent (and not-so-recent) history. And no, Skippy, I don't think Access is naive. I think they misjudged the information provided to them, and that they will discover that misjudgement and correct it. But I also think that when you are doing business internationally, such things take longer than if you're local to the company you bought. So Access isn't naïve - they just "misjudged the information provided to them" and blew over $300 million on something that is worth MUCH less than the selling price? Wow. That's a classic line, Marty. You're just TOO funny. I also don't think Access' management is as cynical as they'd have to be to have acted in the way you're suggesting they are. Access is a company run by professionals and is partially controlled by a party that would have interest in NetFrontLinux. They will do precisely what is in their best interest, whether or not you see this as being "cynical". As to the self-quote: It's not in Access' interest to alienate PalmSource's customers by not delivering on PalmSource's committments to those customers. Especially since those companies are *already* customers of Access. Looking at the (lack of) development of PalmOS over the years, it will not take much effort for Access to continue to provide the same level of (non)service. PalmOS 5 could easily be hackable for another 2 years, fulfilling the existing contracts. If Palm abandons PalmOS just as Access abandons developing PalmOS for Palm, does it really matter who gave up on who first? And if Access finds a massive ready-made market awaiting NetFrontLinux, do you think they will care if Palm ups its commitment for PalmOS licenses? Did the plan work for PalmSource? Yes. It got them bought, which if you look at Pat's history is what he was probably made acting chair to do. Here you go acting dim-witted on purpose, Marty. "The plan" was PalmSource's desperate move from Cobalt to PalmLinux. Which plan are YOU talking about? And to clarify some more of your obfuscation: McVeigh replaced Nagel in late May, 2005, barely 3 months after he joined PalmSource. When exactly do YOU think McVeigh orchestrated the switch to PalmLinux in order to make PalmSource appear more appealing to potential suitors? > What I fail to understand is why Access would spend over $300 You fail to understand because you fail to grasp what PalmSource's assets of interest to Access were, or how they could have overbid in the heat of an auction. You are so hung up on your agenda, that you can't interpret the data in any way that doesn't fit it, even when, as above, you can recognize that the data doesn't fit the agenda. No, I fail to understand because PalmSource was not worth over $300 million. I fail to understand because China MobileSoft - the key to the deal - is an unproven asset not worth that kind of money either (in my opinion, as well as that of many others). Unless when CMS opened the kimono for Access they revaled a stunning, hidden set of whoppers, the deal makes little sense. That is, unless Access already has a waiting customer for NetFrontLinux and is confident they can deliver the product on time. If NetFrontLinux for smartphones is all that matters to Access, guess what happens with good old PalmLinux? Adios... In your quest to cast every discussion as a debate that you "win", you miss important stuff. No, Marty. The "important stuff" is right there in all of my posts. You just want to keep pretending you don't understand. You're colorful, Skippy, but not particularly insightful. Whatever gets you through the night, Marty. Take care.
The Palm eCONomy = Communism™ The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038 NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
KultiVator, this is the first time I have been compared to Harry Potter, but thanks in any case. I love informed debate, and if you have any speculation you would like to throw in the ring, feel free. I demand no allegiance, but I do demand at least a smidgen of evidence. We can not influence the course of Palm or Access, this is all intellectual jerking off, but its fun nevertheless. Sitting on the sideline criticising the process is even less productive and certainly less interesting. The only mistake you can make is to take anything here too seriously. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 8:25:16 AM #
>The only mistake you can make is to take anything >here too seriously. Point taken. I do enjoy the banter most of the time, but every once in a while all the negative spin gets me worked up enough to write a post like this! People like Mr Beers aint so bad, despite all the bitch-slapping that goes on - and his perspective as an actual developer is useful, to me at least. Would rather read his informed & measured comments than the usual "its the end of the world" type crap that the doom & gloomers spout seven days a week! The only mistake you could make is in not taking the Harry Potter reference seriously enough! Please post some more garbage whining about posts...The_Voice_of_Reason @ 12/19/2005 1:31:52 PM #
Surur / Gekko / TVoR / etc - you remind me of Harry Potter in the first two books/movies... you might have been given fancy wands and are able to talk a good game, but when it comes down to it... you sure don't seem to be packing much magic! ;) KultiVator Thanks for sharing, Bubba. Maybe next time you can try to post something here that's actually worth reading. By the way, unless you've been sleeping, you would realize that Surur and I have posted more FACTS (complete with links) than ALL the Palm Apologists combined. The fact that the Palm Apologists (like Jeff Kirvin, RhinoSteve, Beersy, etc.) have all wilted like dead pathetic weeds shows you who has the evidence backing their claims. The Palm eCONomy = Communism™ The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038 NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 1:50:24 PM #
>Maybe next time you can try to post something here >that's actually worth reading.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
This has obviously gone way off the original topic which was the progress by Linux hackers in getting Linux to run on current Palm OS devices. Unfortunately, all the ad hominem (and, I think it's fair to add, psychosis) has reduced the signal to noise ratio way below anything that would be required for real discussion of what ACCESS may be planning to do with what they're now calling "PalmSource OS" vis a vis NetFront. On my flight this AM I wrote a blog entry about this. Here's an excerpt that offers some speculation but maybe more importantly puts some rational constraints around some of the sillier speculations we've seen here. Not to say they're "wrong" or a "lie" (speculations don't fall into those categories) just that some of them are pretty darn unlikely given the circumstances of the acquisition and a little knowledge about both Palm and web programming. Flame away. The current argument stems from the fact that ACCESS has been working for some time to make their NetFront web browser into something that's much more like a complete application stack for smartphones. It's an interesting idea to use a browser as a graphical user interface for locally installed software. A sophisticated browser like NetFront has a pretty sophisticated screen rendering engine and scripting capabilities, so from an engineering standpoint it's efficient to re-use these capabilities for locally installed software as well as for rendering web content. Microsoft does this with Internet Explorer. From the standpoint of wireless operators, having a browser that is more central to the application layer of a phone presents great opportunities for pushing not only content onto the phone, but network-aware software as well. And given ACCESS's interest in Linux, it seems conceivable to me that they could even go so far as to leverage some mature and open Linux web and database server technology to deliver software in the form of purely local web applications. This would have some benefits in that it could open up some very slick integration between Internet applications and content and locally installed software. And it would might create a new mobile developer community from programmers whose background is mainly in server and client-side scripting for the web. Even if ACCESS doesn't go so far as to install a tiny web server on devices for delivering applications, it's quite possible that a browser could be used as the GUI layer for native applications. Palm was actually an early pioneer of this approach with the introduction of Palm Query Applications (PQAs) that gave access to data from the wireless web but also to local software resources. While this technology was abandoned in the last couple of years, it's a reminder that a browser that's part of a complete mobile platform (rather than just an application) can "know" about things like "appointments," "contacts" or third-party application-defined data types and can enable these entities to live both on the Internet and in local memory and worked with from a unified interface. All this seems very likely, and in fact it appears to be well under way as seen in ACCESS's development of NetFront Dynamic Menu (http://www.access-sys-eu.com/dynamic_menu.html). But where does Palm OS fit into this picture? Of course, it's possible that ACCESS could take either of the two approaches just discussed to deliver something very much like the Palm OS. But did ACCESS buy PalmSource so it could create a version of it that runs inside NetFront as some are now claiming is "obviously" the case? I think the likelihood of this is exceedingly small for several reasons. Not the least of them by any means is that Palm applications work with the underlying system in a very different way than Javascripted web pages do. A browser might be able to parse a resource database for form resources to get a picture of the user interface it needs to render, but a Palm application does not have a document object model like a web page. This means there is very little in NetFront's scripting engine that would map onto the Palm OS API. Also I'd guess that most popular Palm applications do not rely exclusively on form resources to generate the UI. To make NetFront be a container that runs existing Palm applications they would need to create something that relates to the browser in much the same way that a Java Applet does; that is, very little beyond the fact that it displays inside a browser window. And sure, ACCESS could do that, but the question is why bother? It would be a huge effort with very little payoff as far as I'm concerned, especially as compared to what could be done by keeping NetFront as an application that runs either side by side or within the Palm OS as it currently does. If the Palm OS API was written in an object-oriented language like Java it might be practical to have some limited and ugly interoperability by calling methods on a Palm OS "applet" from Javascript within the browser client, or vice versa as is possible in some implementations of Java applets. But it's not. So it seems to me that doing this largely isolates the Palm OS from NetFront and prevents a lot of interesting integration from happening. On the other side, there's a lot of great integration that could be done by enabling NetFront to launch Palm OS applications or to directly work with their data. Conversely, Palm OS has sorely lacked a browser component like that available to Windows developers. ACCESS could give Palm developers the ability to incorporate browser controls into their their applications, and not just for browsing, but for other advanced web features that ACCESS plans for NetFront to offer in the future, such as display of real-time content, interaction with remote servers via HTTP requests, and network "presence" support. This would give NetFront-powered mobile devices instant traction with the large Palm developer community, something ACCESS has said repeatedly is one of the main attractions of owning the Palm OS. Again, if ACCESS only wants to create a Palm OS simulator that runs inside the browser it seems to me they lose most of this interesting potential. It also means they would have little reason to have purchased PalmSource. StyleTap didn't need PalmSource to help them create a Palm OS simulator that runs on Windows Mobile devices. ACCESS may or may not regret the high price they paid to acquire PalmSource in the heat of a bidding war, but I think we can reasonably assume that their plan was to do something with Palm OS that would require the skills and knowledge of PalmSource engineers. Bottom line is that while NetFront seems to be a part of ACCESS's plans for supporting a third-party application ecosystem--and potentially a pretty interesting one--that's unlikely to be the whole story. If ACCESS wants to do something more than just burn a bunch of money on Palm OS as some kind of charity case we're probably going to see the NetFront and Palm OS APIs extending each other with the possibility of applications that run inside a browser window, outside the browser, or some interesting combinations of the two. In other words, ACCESS's platform will, for the time being, support Palm apps, NetFront apps, and maybe some apps that we'd consider to be hybrids of the two from where we stand today. With regard to a comment Marty made earlier about Palm developers not wanting changes to the API, I'd have to say this hasn't been my experience. I know quite a few Palm developers and very few of them are not comfortable and actively developing with Windows APIs, Symbian APIs, Java APIs, or some combination of the above. The fact that they haven't ported their applications to Cobalt isn't because of any resistance to dealing with new APIs, it's because they weren't sure when or if Cobalt devices were going to come to market, which turned out to be a pretty good instinct. I think it's safe to say that most serious Palm developers would love to be able to port their Palm applications to run on an OS that preserves the things that users love about Palm OS if that OS was going to ship on a good number of popular devices. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/19/2005 3:56:15 PM #
Once again, Skippy accuses with no evidence to support his accusations, so I'll skip the childish colorful bits. > "The plan" was PalmSource's desperate move from Cobalt to That one. > And to clarify some more of your obfuscation: McVeigh I never claimed that McVeigh orchestrated the switch, only that he was probably promoted to sell the company. I don't know who orchestraded the switch; the decision was made before I started at PalmSource. It doesn't matter who orchestrated it, Skippy, it worked. Got PalmSource sold for a significant premium over what it had been recently traded for. > No, I fail to understand because PalmSource was not worth You fail to understand because you fail to understand what about China MobileSoft was worth money to Access, and you fail to understand that, in the final analysis, even professionals make mistakes. As far as I can tell, PalmSource acted honestly and in good faith in describing itself to Access, and Access acted professionally and with due dillegence in investing in PalmSource. But PalmSource is the first company Access has ever bought, so while they're professionals, they're hardly experts. Sorry, Skippy, but Access bought PalmSource fully expecting to deliver PalmOS on Linux with NetFront in addition, and that's still their plan.
I survived PalmSource '05 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Uh, sorry, that was a little longer excerpt that I meant to post. :) David Beers Pikesoft Mobile Computing Software Everywhere blog www.pikesoft.com/blog RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Cervezas said: "On the other side, there's a lot of great integration that could be done by enabling NetFront to launch Palm OS applications or to directly work with their data. Conversely, Palm OS has sorely lacked a browser component like that available to Windows developers. ACCESS could give Palm developers the ability to incorporate browser controls into their their applications, and not just for browsing, but for other advanced web features that ACCESS plans for NetFront to offer in the future..... Again, if ACCESS only wants to create a Palm OS simulator that runs inside the browser it seems to me they lose most of this interesting potential."
That's exactly what I meant by my earlier question to Sam H about what "integrating the NetFront browser" actually meant. It just seems to defy logic that you'd buy a company, only to then toss their products to one side and just build a glorified emulator. StyleTap and every other emulation project on the planet has shown that's unnecessary. It seems absolutely *nuts* for them to just swipe what bits they want out of PalmLinux and then bury it completely. Surely they could have done that just by being a licensee? Perhaps Voice is right (stop laughing! :P ) and CMS was what Access was *really* after? But even then, it still doesn't seem to justify what they spent for it. Of course, the profits to be made from mobile phones make that $300 mil look like chump change... RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Your whole thesis depends on that its better to maintain the status quo than do anything new. It seems to me that doing it the NetfrontOS way would launch a whole new internet based OS with the huge advantage of having a large library of apps ready made for it. POS would be equivalent to Java, but probably have more apps available for it. Imagine all the POS games available to download and run on an Access phone, or all the mortgage calculators, or office software etc. All these apps are pretty stand alone, and do not depend on the PalmOS GUI to be available. Its not about the GUI, its about the apps, isn't it? I remind you that OS X also uses a page description language to render their GUI. In addition many apps are written in HTML and java script, like gmail, hotmail, google maps etc. Going this way would be a bold break with the past and a move to the future, and would still allow most legacy apps to work. Anyways, if you ask me, the more POS apps are isolated from the rest of the OS, the better. Thats how software are supposed to work in the 21st century. In short, if you list the advantages and disadvantages of doing it the NetfrontOS way, I think the advantages would win. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 6:05:16 PM #
The apps generally call on the Palm APIs which in turn provide the GUI for the apps (the forms, buttons, lists, menus, etc) - so probably fair to say that the GUI is an important aspect of most Palm apps, whether the developer consciously intended that to be the case or not. Of course, some developers avoid using the APIs and standard GUI controls and handle everything in their own program code (as with many Astraware games for example - which relieve the OS from screen drawing duties). I guess that's the beauty of StyleTap - it recreates a good emulation of the Palm OS environment, including all of the underlying layers such as GUI, Comms, Exchange Manager, VFS, etc It will be interesting to see how deeply the Palm OS support will be entrenched in their OS. Is it just an emulator (as per POSIX apps running on an NT4 kernel), or a re-engineered modern multi-layer OS with the new APIs needed to carry the platform beyond the hurdles of stable multi-tasking, multi-threading and to finally deliver compelling multimedia performance to rival the best gadgets in the handheld market (the deliverable we all hoped for after the BEOS acquisition). Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the Access development team's meetings! RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Your whole thesis depends on that its better to maintain the status quo than do anything new. I'm not sure why you say that. I'm suggesting that NetFront could potentially provide a substantial expansion to the Palm OS API and vice versa and that this expansion (as opposed to freezing the state of the Palm OS API) would be a logical justification for their interest in acquiring their own mobile OS in the first place. It seems to me that doing it the NetfrontOS way would launch a whole new internet based OS with the huge advantage of having a large library of apps ready made for it. POS would be equivalent to Java, but probably have more apps available for it. You're not getting my point. I really don't think there is a practical way to put a browser GUI on a Palm application whether or not it would be nice to do. To take the Java example, the GUI you get inside a Java applet is AWT--it comes from Java, not from the browser. Do this with the Palm OS within NetFront and it would look like StyleTap, not like NetFront. You could make a PalmOS-like OS that used a page description language like XUL but you could never make it run existing Palm applications. You can't read compiled C code as if it was a document and you can't execute machine code from within Javascript. That's what I meant when I said that Palm applications do not have a document object model. Anyways, if you ask me, the more POS apps are isolated from the rest of the OS, the better. Thats how software are supposed to work in the 21st century. Well, IMO, software in the 21st century is all about interoperability. The benefit of ACCESS owning both NetFront and the PalmSource OS is that they can integrate the two. The unintegrated state of affairs is what exists today. And there's not a single reason that ACCESS would have had to buy PalmSource in order just to create a simple StyleTap-like browser control.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 6:24:18 PM #
I'm with Mr Beers on this. The browser will be important in post-Access Palm handhelds and possibly be the engine behind the new program launcher, etc. But my gut feeling is that Access are building a real platform and not just fusing their browser into whatever Linux/Palm mix they have lined up for us. What remains to be seen is how well they structure the OS for future development. And could we one day be looking at PDA hardware that is good for more than one generation of OS during its life? RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
And there's not a single reason that ACCESS would have had to buy PalmSource in order just to create a simple StyleTap-like browser control. I think that would be a brilliant outcome. When an app crashes it wont take down the whole OS. Java apps and POS apps and other supported plug-ins (e.g flash) would all be equivalent. Nothing wrong with that. It would be good for developers, good for the networks and good for Access. It would fit in with their pre-PSRC-acquisition strategy. Surur
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
KultiVator wrote: Of course, some developers avoid using the APIs and standard GUI controls and handle everything in their own program code (as with many Astraware games for example - which relieve the OS from screen drawing duties). When you draw directly to the screen you're still using the Palm OS API, but this is a good example of the kind of thing that is all but impossible to implement in a browser in the way that Surer, SamH, and TVoR seem to be implying. You might be able to write Javascript that will give the effect of drawing to a browser window, and you can write Javascript that can walk and manipulate a DOM tree like an XML document, but you can't write Javascript that reads compiled code--or even uncompiled C code--and then injects events into that code's event loop to make it run. Maybe I'm wrong and there is someone out there who can explain how a browser event model can map to a C API Palm application so you can replace the GUI with scripted markup language. But until this is explained to me by one of you geniuses I'm going to stand behind my experience with both C and Javascript and say I don't think it's possible. Furthermore, I don't think it would accomplish anything. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 6:38:06 PM #
Yes - there are advantages to the Virtual machine (sandbox) approach. However, have you ever tried running even a modest game in a VMWARE session on a regular spec PC? Performance is very poor if you can get the software to even fire up. Would modern PDA/Smartphone users compromise this much on performance? RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
The browser will be important in post-Access Palm handhelds and possibly be the engine behind the new program launcher, etc. . . What remains to be seen is how well they structure the OS for future development. http://surur.sytes.net/netfrontplan.jpg Its all there. Notice the title - Netfront, platform in the Net era. Remember that Netfront primarily designs for connected devices. Notice that the native apps feed through the browser. They are making an OS for mobile phones, not PDA's. Imagine having a very powerful today screen on your phone, connected to a 3G network, showing live weather satellite feeds, news headlines and the traffic report, plus adverts from the local stores through network location information (making the network millions). Access has a vision, and if PSRC was not going to help them fulfill their vision, why did they buy it? BTW, even under styletap most games run 70% to >100% speed. Remember many games were meant to run on 66Mhz processors. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 6:43:05 PM #
We've all been spoilt the past few years with the progress of emulation as a technology. Behind the scenes though, you have to remember that real hardware (under clever software instruction) is busy synthesising virtual hardware and in doing so wasting shed-loads of CPU cycles, power, etc over tasks that would be trivial if handled natively (without using emulation). In a nutshell - emulation is very wasteful, especially in handheld devices where extra CPU cycles come at the expense of battery life. Emulation has a place, for isolated apps - not as a basis for running an entire handheld OS. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.KultiVator @ 12/19/2005 6:49:02 PM #
You can get many of the stability benefits of the virtual machine approach by simply running each app in its own private protected memory space. And without the need for all that emulation overhead. Linux is built to exploit these kinds of techniques - and hopefully Access will implement the new OS in a manner which adopts and extends this approach - providing a sound foundation for Palm apps in the future. RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
I wrote: And there's not a single reason that ACCESS would have had to buy PalmSource in order just to create a simple StyleTap-like browser control. Surer replied: OK, so I take it I'm making progress now and you're agreeing that there's not going to be a NetFront GUI skinning the Palm OS (just as a Flash plug-in would have its own GUI). Now that you're this far, Surer, please explain to us why ACCESS had to pay PalmSource $300M to run Palm OS this way on Linux when StyleTap paid PalmSource $0 to achieve essentially the same result on Win CE.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Surer wrote: The browser will be important in post-Access Palm handhelds and possibly be the engine behind the new program launcher, etc. Good, I think you're starting to get it. NetFront can be written to take NetFront GUI events and pass them down to the system--the PalmSource/ACCESS Linux system--which could then perform things like launching a Palm application. That's integration between NetFront and Palm OS with the underlying system managing the show. Other kind of integration: tapping a link to an MP3 or video file in a web page and directly launching a registered PalmSource API player like TCPMP or PocketTunes. Or tapping an email link and creating a new email in a PalmSource API mail client registered to do so. Or highlighting an address in the browser and launching some mapping software or inserting it as a record in the Contacts application. Or to attach offline web content to records in your favorite PalmSource API applications. Now, getting back to the browser being able to work as a launcher, what happens when the selected application launches? Here are the options that I can see (let me know if you see others): #1. A window opens that is essentially an instance of the NetFront browser, but without the usual browser controls. Inside that window one of the following occurs: a) A PalmSource "plug-in" displays the application in a simulation of the Palm OS similar to StyleTap. (Provides backward compatibility with existing Palm applications, which ACCESS claims they want, but leaves open a $328M mystery.) b) a NetFrontOS application launches that looks and works a little like a Palm application but with a GUI based on various markup languages. (No existing Palm application is supported, but developers can rewrite their applications using markup language and Javascript. Most will find porting to Windows Mobile or Symbian a lot easier, but if ACCESS really does a bang-up job marketing this it might be worth a go for a developer like me. Once again, though, the $328M mystery: there's no special reason to buy PalmSource or even China Mobilesoft if the application middleware you are going to create is based on skills that your own development staff have in much greater abundance. After all, Palm has been outsourcing to ACCESS for this kind of work for years, not the other way around.) #2. If the application is a NetFront API application it launches much like option 1(b) and uses NetFront's GUI rendering engine and whatever event system that provides for interaction with the underlying Linux kernel and services. But if the application is a PalmSource API app it launches with its own GUI, as defined by PalmSource's middleware and it does so within an event loop managed by that middleware. Here's where there is a reason for ACCESS to need PalmSource engineers, including the CMS folks. Now, if you're Marty and party to undisclosable secret knowledge about Palm OS for Linux that in his opinion will come as an unhappy surprise to ACCESS at some point, you argue that ACCESS will eventually let the PalmSource API die. Not to take anything from Marty, but his assertions don't really give us any way to evaluate whether this skepticism is something that would be shared by others party to the same information or is something of a more personal nature, or just a matter of perspective. If you're inclined to wild speculation, or to question Marty's judgment, or are by disposition optimistic, or consider that problems known to Marty are things that perhaps could be remedied, with or without the good folks in Sunnyvale, you might see some opportunities that would make ACCESS less willing to sever the partnership between their browser-based application stack and PalmSource's. One thing is that since each are burned into ROM there are possibilities for tight integration that might make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Don't ask me to weigh in on this. I'm an optimist by nature, but I admit that having two APIs might be a handful to maintain in the long run unless ACCESS finds some pretty compelling reasons to do so. But I don't have enough information to judge which of the above outcomes will prevail. All I can say is that it's a lot more likely to be the result of ACCESS picking what's behind door #2 than door #1.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Now that you understand were I'm coming from :) ... Before styletap we did not think it was possible to run most POS apps on WM. As other people have mentioned, to run POS apps you also need various graphics toolkits and API's. Raw Linux will not provide this. If you have $300 million, maybe its just faster and easier to buy the original code and the company and also eliminate the risk of being sued. Also being the official POS will give them instant credibility, as the captain of the OS, vs always chasing a changing API implemented by some-one else (e.g. Real Rhapsody Harmony vs Apple Fairplay). In any case, arnt we all just waiting for styletap to get sued? If they get popular enough I guarantee they will be. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Surer wrote: In any case, arnt we all just waiting for styletap to get sued? I'm not a lawyer, but even if StyleTap could be sued for this I think the question in this context is whether that suit couldn't have been averted by simply licensing the Palm OS before they released their product. A lot cheaper than buying the company. So why wasn't ACCESS content to become a licensee? Admit it, Surer, you're really out on a very thin limb here. I'm not saying your view can't possibly turn out to be right. Just that it seems to be premised on a kind of stupidity on the part of ACCESS that doesn't seem justified by their success to date. You have to come up with a better argument if you're going to sell anyone on this.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Surer wrote: The browser will be important in post-Access Palm handhelds and possibly be the engine behind the new program launcher, etc. Hey, I dint say this. It was actually freakout. NetFront can be written to take NetFront GUI events and pass them down to the system--the PalmSource/ACCESS Linux system--which could then perform things like launching a Palm application. That's integration between NetFront and Palm OS with the underlying system managing the show. Other kind of integration: tapping a link to an MP3 or video file in a web page and directly launching a registered PalmSource API player like TCPMP or PocketTunes. Or tapping an email link and creating a new email in a PalmSource API mail client registered to do so. Or highlighting an address in the browser and launching some mapping software or inserting it as a record in the Contacts application. Or to attach offline web content to records in your favorite PalmSource API applications. What you discribe initially is exactly the same amount of intergration IE has in Windows. Sopposedly deep, but not very profound. Also pretty boring. I subcribe to the 1a view, which I believe would be the most flexible solution, easiest to port to various phone hardware and OS layers (just like java), while still providing the advantage of the large existing library of POS software, while protecting the user from bum software. Of note is that the HTML GUI would only be used where appropriate. There would still be software that gets to play outside the sandbox, such as Access's own IMAP software, M-IMAP. About Mobile IMAP Its however clear that 3rd party software would not have the same status as Access or OEM software, and would be expected to run through a sandbox, be it Java or Netfront. This is of course essential for a phone device, where security and stability is very important. Again, look at the slide. http://surur.sytes.net/netfrontplan.jpg Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Surer wrote: As other people have mentioned, to run POS apps you also need various graphics toolkits and API's. Raw Linux will not provide this. "Raw Linux" is a straw man since that's a kernel, not an operating system. But just FYI, Linux-based OSes have been running the Palm OS emulator since the earliest days of Palm OS. Someone here is spectacularly wrong. And I think it's...The_Voice_of_Reason @ 12/19/2005 8:40:29 PM #
Not me. First off, anyone interested in what's being debated here might want to take a look at this thred (ignore the flames). http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060 Now let's look at the NetFront possibilities: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111861 The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/12/2005 3:04:26 AM # The NetFront browser-as-UI paradigm would be a pretty bold step. Windows already can be set up like that and Google's plug-ins show what can be done when one takes a step back and creatively thinks about UI issues. With new PalmOS apps being written to the Protein APIs, with robust multitasking being built into PalmLinux, with even the most casual of users now being comfortable with a browser interface, and with an always-on wireless connection likely being the centerpoint of all future mobile devices, having apps plug in to a browser-style "launcher" definitely seems both understandable and doable. Not necessarily my cup of tea, but I doubt PalmSource's UI Kiddies wouldn't have too much switching ideas from Rome to a browser paradigm. NetFrontLinux would seem to be a pretty realistic synergy between Access' and PalmSource's respective IP, in my opinion. Too bad Surur let the cat out of the bag so quickly! Of course, if you happen to have a better explanation for why a Japanese mobile browser company would pay over $300 million for a struggling American mobile OS company, please enlighten us all, Beersy. Otherwise, please S T F U and keep you puerile insults to yourself. Thank you. TVoR, Inc. "The [codemonkey] doth protest too much, methinks"
http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111922 It's actually all quite simple: imagine the BROWSER interface as app launcher + file manager, with a pop-up/drop-down list of ALL apps; customisable links (e.g. icons on a DIA) to frequently used apps (both Protein or 68K), email program, contacts, schedule, websites, folders, etc. With an always-on connection, all sources of info are really just DATA - no matter where they're stored (RAM, expansion card, internet, remote hard drives). The browser interface can facilitate accessing this data seamlessly. Imagine being able to browse your home computer, Wi-Fi connected computers, RAM and expansion cards all from the same interface on a mobile device. Yes, you can do this now with a Treo, but everything is a kludge that needs separate software to be installed by a fairly sophisticated user. The Browser UI can potentially bring all the benefits of connectivity home to the average Joe/Jane. THINK about it, Beersy. It's really not a difficult concept. There would be no app compatibility issues, but obviously legacy (68K) apps could not multitask. With multitasking, different apps could appear either as tabs within the browser or icons on a DIA or "sites" choosable from a "history" drop down list or even simpler: through "forward" and "back" buttons. The browser interface presents as if it was in RAM. Very slick. If you own a CLIE, download AppShelf to get a feel for what I'm talking about. http://www.jade.dti.ne.jp/~imazeki/palm/APsh/index-e.html NetFrontLinux might end up being not much more than AppShelp On Steroids™. And Access' NetFrontLinux Manifesto:
Integrating these items while maintaining their current structures seems to make little sense - NetFrontLinux would be little better than AppShelf running on a PalmOS 5 PDA. Having PalmLinux and 68K emulation interacting with NetFront as virtual plug-ins would seemingly cause too much of a performance hit, but then again, up until StyleTap managed to emulate PalmOS so completely under Mobile Windows everyone thought that was impossible as well. Scaling back the importance of NetFront (with PalmLinux - not NetFront - doing all of the heavy lifting) would seem a more realistic goal, but again, a poorly-integrated NetFrontLinux seems to have almost no raison d'être - especially at a cost of over $300 million. But remember: NetFrontLinux is - by necessity - a smartphone OS, so perhaps everyone here is expecting too much. "Adequate" integration may be more than "good enough" in a market where there aren't really any good alternate solutions. TVoR The Palm eCONomy = Communism™ The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038 NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823 RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
Sorry to beat this into the ground Surer, but looking at the lovely schematic you got from that old ACCESS preso, aren't you arguing that Palm OS would fall into one of the orange bubbles that are shown being part of the browser application (Flash player, Real player, etc)? Shouldn't "Native apps" be in one of those to make your point? Now look at the little yellow bubbles: Contents, Ringer tones, wall paper, video clips, photos, Java apps, native apps. See how these are not plug-ins nor are they attached to the browser engine? There's an arrow pointing from them to Browser application. Hmmm. Now read that list again. All of those are content items that could be links inside a browser that a browser application could deal intelligently with: content->display it... ring tone->install it to the phone... wallpaper->install it... video clips->play them... photos->show them... Java apps-> get the JAD file and install it with the JAR in the Java environment... Native apps->??? The quote you gave (from the same presentation, am I right?) explains what the browser app will do with native apps: launch them. Presumably if it's a link to a recognized executable file format that's been digitally signed it will enable you to install it from the web, too, like you would the Java app that's in the yellow bubble parked next to it. So much for the evidence that NetFront OS is subsuming Palm OS.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
"Raw Linux" is a straw man since that's a kernel, not an operating system. Thats why I called it raw. But just FYI, Linux-based OSes have been running the Palm OS emulator since the earliest days of Palm OS. Thats presumably using the routines in the ROM's provided, through direct emulation. The ROM's are licensed software, arnt they. But see how much simpler it is if you have direct access to the ROM's VS actually having to emulate the APIs? But you are right, we wont know exactly why Access did what they did until they release a product, but I think my view is more consistent with their old published plans than yours. I'm sure we will find out in less than 6 months time though. Surur RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.
The browser will be important in post-Access Palm handhelds and possibly be the engine behind the new program launcher, etc. Hey, I dint say this. It was actually freakout. I apologize. So all your NetFront plan shows is that NetFront will be able to install native applications off the web just like Java MIDlets and the other content items shown in the little yellow bubbles. Sorry, but that document is majorly not making your case. What you discribe initially is exactly the same amount of intergration IE has in Windows. Sopposedly deep, but not very profound. Surer, I'm shocked. Is this the same guy who has been touting Windows Mobile for the seamless integration of its system and applications? Also pretty boring. Well, I'm a pretty boring guy. I thought the idea of linking a Google map to a contact or an offline web page to a task without any special software was kinda neat. I'm sure a more creative person could do much better. Let me try a little harder to be interesting. How about being able to set an alert to go off when a post is made to your favorite RSS feed or a new Podcast is published? (Any reason a headless browser control couldn't run in a PalmSource API application that's running as a service in a background thread?) Or perhaps you prefer not to be bothered and to just have the content queued up in your preferred reader/player for later. How about enabling applications that use pen input to mark up a web document (HTML, PDF, Word, etc) with digital ink like you can on a Tablet PC? Or cut and paste content from a web page into a document in its original format, or perhaps as a gif or jpg? How about adding live Internet links to records in any application and enabling the content to be viewed without ever leaving the application? I dunno. Sounds nice to me.
RE: This should be Palm's backup plan.PenguinPowered @ 12/19/2005 10:06:31 PM #
This is a fascinating discussion, but it relies an awful lot on one extremely high level drawing of Access' approach from before they decided to get into the platfor |
The 
PalmOS-style GUI + PalmOS compatibility layer + GPE + Linux = The New Palm OS!