OpenSUSE on Cellphones

[Wade Jenkins]

I see Ubuntu ready for cellphones. Surely this would be a success. I would
rather have a clean Linux on my 4 cores cellphone, with application of my
choice, than an Android OS with restrictions and limitation of various
kind.

I would suggest OpenSUSE to start developing for embedded devices
immediately, if not already too late!!

[Wade Jenkins]

houghi wrote:

> Wade Jenkins wrote:
>> I would suggest OpenSUSE to start developing for embedded devices
>> immediately, if not already too late!!
>

> They have some sort that is developed on OSB. Forgot the name, but it
> isn't openSUSE.

Well, they should start to optimize and recompile the kernel, as I did so
many times. Is not difficult but it takes time. Then optimize few
dedicated application, letting the rest to us.

I would prefer SuSE before Ubuntu. I believe that since suse got sponsored
by microsoft in the past (an now?), they are not very happy to overshadow
windows8 mobile. However, this is a big mistakes. They underestimate the
user as they did it in the past.

[DenverD]

On 05/06/2013 11:25 PM, Wade Jenkins wrote:
> I would suggest OpenSUSE to start developing for embedded devices
> immediately, if not already too late!!

been working on that since sometime in 2011..

https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:ARM

--
DenverD

[Aragorn]

On Tuesday 07 May 2013 00:12, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

> ...] I believe that since suse got sponsored by microsoft in the past
> (an now?), [...]

SuSE has never been sponsored by Microsoft, but what happened was that
Novell and Microsoft signed an "interoperability and non-litigation
agreement", which Microsoft took as an admission of the presence of
Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux.

Novell itself has always insisted that the deal had no such meaning, but
many other GNU/Linux distributions did also see it that way and were
quickly lining up to sign similar agreements with Microsoft. The FUD
machine was working.

Novell has in the meantime been acquired by Attachmate, and its patent
portfolio - which may or may not include the copyrights to the original
AT&T Unix - was sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by
Microsoft.

Microsoft is continuing to fight GNU/Linux all the way - the Secure Boot
requirement for Windows 8 certification is yet another such strategy -
but the unspoken truth about it all is that they're grasping at straws,
because they have no foot to stand on. Even if they were to receive
ownership of the Unix patents and copyrights through CPTN Holdings LLC,
it wouldn't mean anything on account of GNU/Linux, since nothing in
either GNU nor Linux uses any patents or copyrighted code from AT&T
Unix.

That all said, Ubuntu is indeed clearly aiming at the cellphone and
tablet market - at the cost of a decent user interface for the desktop
workstations - and Shuttleworth really /is/ identifying with Jobs and
Gates. Ubuntu now even officially contains spyware and adware, and for
that reason alone, it should be shunned and chastised.

--
= Aragorn =
GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[Wade Jenkins]

Not quite, those are for ARM based hobby BSPs. However, it is mostly about
the peripherals, ie GSM,WIFI,GPS,Bloetooth,display,touch screen etc.

Best would be to take a proper android cellphone BSP, ie SGS3 Exynos Quad
core, and compile something to it.

[Wade Jenkins]

Aragorn wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 May 2013 00:12, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.suse...
>
>> ...] I believe that since suse got sponsored by microsoft in the past
>> (an now?), [...]
>
> SuSE has never been sponsored by Microsoft, but what happened was that
> Novell and Microsoft signed an "interoperability and non-litigation
> agreement", which Microsoft took as an admission of the presence of
> Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux.

What/Where is the MS IP in OpenSUSE? We might have it and dont know.

Why should Novell feel forced to sign something like this?

> Novell itself has always insisted that the deal had no such meaning, but
> many other GNU/Linux distributions did also see it that way and were
> quickly lining up to sign similar agreements with Microsoft. The FUD
> machine was working.

This is not true. I believe Novell was the first to sign that "agreement",
then came Redhat I suppose. However, Ubuntu is still free from Microsoft.

> Novell has in the meantime been acquired by Attachmate, and its patent
> portfolio - which may or may not include the copyrights to the original
> AT&T Unix - was sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by
> Microsoft.

So Microsoft owns Linux you say.

> Microsoft is continuing to fight GNU/Linux all the way - the Secure Boot
> requirement for Windows 8 certification is yet another such strategy -

UEFI again?

> but the unspoken truth about it all is that they're grasping at straws,
> because they have no foot to stand on. Even if they were to receive
> ownership of the Unix patents and copyrights through CPTN Holdings LLC,
> it wouldn't mean anything on account of GNU/Linux, since nothing in
> either GNU nor Linux uses any patents or copyrighted code from AT&T
> Unix.
>
> That all said, Ubuntu is indeed clearly aiming at the cellphone and
> tablet market - at the cost of a decent user interface for the desktop
> workstations - and Shuttleworth really /is/ identifying with Jobs and
> Gates. Ubuntu now even officially contains spyware and adware, and for
> that reason alone, it should be shunned and chastised.

As root you may remove everything including spy/adware. This was my point.
In Android is a bitch, even the directory structure is changed, you need
rooting, busybox etc

[Wade Jenkins]

houghi wrote:

> Wade Jenkins wrote:

>> Best would be to take a proper android cellphone BSP, ie SGS3 Exynos
Quad
>> core, and compile something to it.
>

> Let us know when you are done.

A quad core cellphone is stronger than many desktops PC running OpenSUSE.

Plus: Low Power, low noise etc. You just plug into a larger FullHD
display, mouse and keyboard, external HD, and there it is.

I think I will save the money and move to Ubuntu.

[Aragorn]

On Tuesday 07 May 2013 19:12, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to

alt.os.linux.suse...

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 07 May 2013 00:12, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to
>> alt.os.linux.suse...
>>
>>> ...] I believe that since suse got sponsored by microsoft in the
>>> past (an now?), [...]
>>
>> SuSE has never been sponsored by Microsoft, but what happened was
>> that Novell and Microsoft signed an "interoperability and
>> non-litigation agreement", which Microsoft took as an admission of
>> the presence of Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux.
>
> What/Where is the MS IP in OpenSUSE? We might have it and dont know.

I'm sure that if there really were any Microsoft intellectual property
in GNU/Linux, Microsoft would - being the patent trolls they are -
already long have sued several GNU/Linux distributions or even Linus
Torvalds himself, or the FSF. Yet, the only thing they actually did on
the subject was launch the FUD that "they believe that there is
Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux", by word of Steve Ballmer.

FUD tactics. Nothing else.

> Why should Novell feel forced to sign something like this?

That is a good question, and only the former Novell brass know the
reasons why they entered into such an agreement with Microsoft.

I mean, even the moniker "interoperability" alone doesn't cover anything
that any GNU/Linux distribution should concern themselves about, given
that GNU/Linux is and has always been far more "interoperable" than
Microsoft has ever been with anything other than its own products.
Hell, a GNU/Linux machine with Samba actually does a better job at
mimicking a Windows NT server than Windows NT itself.

>> Novell itself has always insisted that the deal had no such meaning,
>> but many other GNU/Linux distributions did also see it that way and
>> were quickly lining up to sign similar agreements with Microsoft.
>> The FUD machine was working.
>
> This is not true. I believe Novell was the first to sign that
> "agreement", then came Redhat I suppose.

No, RedHat have never signed such an agreement with Microsoft. However,
Linspire, TurboLinux, Xandros and a bunch of other (and smaller)
distributions did.

That's what I meant when I said that the FUD machine was working.
Novell signed the agreement, which Microsoft then alluded to in the
mainstream media as being an admission of guilt on the part of having
Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux - even though Novell has
always denied both this and the fact that the deal was about this
subject - and with Novell as the example, the other, smaller
distributions followed suit and mindlessly allowed Microsoft to reel
them into non-litigation deals.

> However, Ubuntu is still free from Microsoft.

In essence, all distributions are "free from Microsoft", because there
isn't any Microsoft intellectual property in GNU/Linux. But indeed,
Ubuntu has not signed any interoperability deals with Microsoft, if that
is what you mean.

>> Novell has in the meantime been acquired by Attachmate, and its
>> patent portfolio - which may or may not include the copyrights to the
>> original AT&T Unix - was sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led
>> by Microsoft.
>
> So Microsoft owns Linux you say.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that
Microsoft /may/ now have found a mechanism for obtaining ownership of
the _AT&T Unix_ copyright, because Novell was found to be the legitimate
owner of those copyrights in the litigation between Novell and the SCO
Group; a litigation during which the SCO Group received substantial
amounts of money from Microsoft in unclear transactions - once from
Microsoft directly and twice via a Microsoft sock puppet company.

The ownership of AT&T's intellectual property was the subject of the SCO
Group's litigation against Novell, and with the presumptuous and
expected outcome of this litigation in favor of the SCO Group in mind,
the SCO Group then also sued IBM over alleged inclusion of "their"
intellectual property - namely copyrighted AT&T Unix code - in IBM's
contributions to the Linux kernel.

Although it took a lot of time and a lot of money, the court ruled
_against_ the SCO Group in both litigations. These litigations did
however take their toll - in terms of time and money - from both Novell
and IBM, and presumably that was the intent all along, or at least, on
account of Microsoft's covert sponsorship of these litigations. SCO's
own motivations were simply to make themselves look good in the eyes of
their shareholders, as they were headed towards bankruptcy and they were
hoping that either Novell or IBM would make a bid to acquire SCO.

>> Microsoft is continuing to fight GNU/Linux all the way - the Secure
>> Boot requirement for Windows 8 certification is yet another such
>> strategy -
>
> UEFI again?

Well, UEFI in and of itself is something which GNU/Linux has supported
for way longer than Windows, but the extension of UEFI with the Secure
Boot module is a clear Microsoft anti-competitive strategy, yes.

They couldn't legally prevent the proliferation of GNU/Linux in the x86
market, so they're now seizing ownership of the (consumer-grade) x86
platform by way of market strategy: any computer vendor who wishes to
boast the "designed for Microsoft ® Windows ™ 8" sticker on their
hardware must now supply that computer/motherboard with a UEFI chip
which has Secure Boot. And on ARM - given the success of Android, which
is Linux-based - Secure Boot cannot even be disabled anymore.

>> but the unspoken truth about it all is that they're grasping at
>> straws, because they have no foot to stand on. Even if they were to
>> receive ownership of the Unix patents and copyrights through CPTN
>> Holdings LLC, it wouldn't mean anything on account of GNU/Linux,
>> since nothing in either GNU nor Linux uses any patents or copyrighted
>> code from AT&T Unix.
>>
>> That all said, Ubuntu is indeed clearly aiming at the cellphone and
>> tablet market - at the cost of a decent user interface for the
>> desktop workstations - and Shuttleworth really /is/ identifying with
>> Jobs and Gates. Ubuntu now even officially contains spyware and
>> adware, and for that reason alone, it should be shunned and
>> chastised.
>
> As root you may remove everything including spy/adware. This was my
> point. In Android is a bitch, even the directory structure is changed,
> you need rooting, busybox etc

Yeah... Google's motto is "Don't be evil", but I think that should more
properly read as "Don't be evil while anyone's looking." <grin>

[Wade Jenkins]

Aragorn wrote:

>> As root you may remove everything including spy/adware. This was my
>> point. In Android is a bitch, even the directory structure is changed,
>> you need rooting, busybox etc
>
> Yeah... Google's motto is "Don't be evil", but I think that should more
> properly read as "Don't be evil while anyone's looking." <grin>

Good post, thanks. At least SCO is not a player anymore.

[Norman Hull]

Wade Jenkins wrote:

> I think I will save the money and move to Ubuntu.

What? You are giving up on Linux? ;-)
(Shuttleworth insists that it is the 'Ubuntu Operating System' - Ubuntu now
doesn't like to acknowledge that it is Linux. I've never liked the bloody
thing anyway. Despite ll the hype about it being great for beginners,
easiest to use, blah blah bullshit - I have introduced loads off people to
Linux via SuSE (tried others including Mandrake) and EVERYBODY was happy
with SuSE. On a PC support course they were using Ubuntu to learn abour
Linux until I introduced them to SuSE. All participants cold then choose
which to install and play with. After looking at each distribution nobody
chose Ubuntu again. (Use Arch now as my main system but still have a SuSE
system on board).

--
Norman
If at first you don't succeed - give someone else a go

[Wade Jenkins]

Norman Hull wrote:

> Wade Jenkins wrote:
>
>> I think I will save the money and move to Ubuntu.
> What? You are giving up on Linux? ;-)

Installed the Ubuntu for Android image (sourceforge). Works fine through
VNC (LXDE).

However, no updates, few applications, no root password (needs passwd/
shadow reset). A waste of time. Best would be recompile the applications
to Android env and run them directly. My two cents.

[Wade Jenkins]

houghi wrote:

> Wade Jenkins wrote:

>> However, no updates, few applications, no root password (needs passwd/
>> shadow reset). A waste of time. Best would be recompile the
>> applications to Android env and run them directly. My two cents.
>

> No root password is standard Ubuntu.

What do you mean, the root password in Ubuntu is "standard Ubuntu" ?

[Wade Jenkins]

houghi wrote:

> Wade Jenkins wrote:

>> However, no updates, few applications, no root password (needs passwd/
>> shadow reset). A waste of time. Best would be recompile the
>> applications to Android env and run them directly. My two cents.
>

> No root password is standard Ubuntu.

Tried ubuntu and Ubunto, no luck. In the desktop version I could easily
change the root password etc.

[Aragorn]

On Wednesday 08 May 2013 21:45, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

No, what houghi means is that not having a root password is standard
practice in Ubuntu (and in Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint, Bodhi, et
al).

In Ubuntu (and derivatives), the first user account created at system
installation time is automatically added to the "admin" group, and the
"admin" group is set up with full sudo privileges in /etc/sudoers, with
the required sudo password being set to that of the invoking user [*].

One can, of course, create a root password on Ubuntu, by simply
issuing...

$ sudo passwd


Note: The dollar sign ("$") at the start of any shell commands I provide
in Usenet articles represents the Bourne-compatible shell prompt
for an unprivileged user account and is thus not part of the
command itself. Likewise, if a command needs to be executed as
root, then I will prefix it with a hash/sharp sign ("#").


[*] Other options are no password at all, the target user's password, or
the root user's password. See...

$ man sudoers

... for details.

[Wade Jenkins]

Aragorn wrote:

> One can, of course, create a root password on Ubuntu, by simply
> issuing...
>
> $ sudo passwd

Bullshit, I always changed root passwords in all Ubuntu, is stupid to not
do. As said, this does not works in the Ubuntu for Android image, likely
root already has a undisclosed password. So the only way getting further
is to hack into passwd and shadow.

[Aragorn]

On Thursday 09 May 2013 10:48, Wade Jenkins conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.suse...

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> One can, of course, create a root password on Ubuntu, by simply
>> issuing...
>>
>> $ sudo passwd
>
> Bullshit, I always changed root passwords in all Ubuntu, is stupid to
> not do.

I would agree with that. So then just how exactly does that make my
above-quoted comment into "bullshit", according to you?

> As said, this does not works in the Ubuntu for Android image,
> likely root already has a undisclosed password.

If sudo is properly set up - and it /should/ _already be_ set up "out of
the box" on any Ubuntu and derivative for the first user account created
at installation time - then the command as I supplied it above /will/
change the root user's password, whether it has been set or not.

Do however note the "if" by which I started the above paragraph. As in
"this statement is conditional". I have no experience with Ubuntu on
smartphones and I don't even like Ubuntu as a whole, so I do not know to
what extent Canonical has crippled their phone-oriented distribution.

> So the only way getting further is to hack into passwd and shadow.

If the root password cannot be changed at all, then I suspect that
hacking into /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow isn't going to remedy that,
because then, more likely than not, the root filesystem will be mounted
read-only.

Not something which in itself cannot also be overcome, of course,
provided that sudo was indeed set up for the first user account created
at installation time. But given that this is a version of Ubuntu
specifically targeted at smartphones/tablets and given Canonical's very
un-FLOSS-like stances, I seriously doubt whether this would be the case.

[Walter Brill]

Hello Wade,

please check this:
"[Gta04-owner] openSUSE 12.3 available"
<http://lists.goldelico.com/pipermail/gta04-owner/2013-May/004501.html>

and this:
<http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-main/>

Ciao
Walter

[Elmer Wright]

€555.55 (+ shipment) for a 4-5 years old single core OMAP development kit
with a crap display?? You got to be kidding. I rather stay with a SGS4 all
included. I had angstrom running on an OMAP if I remember right.

Tell those guys that their OMAP board is obsolete.