Full Linux Tablet Coming
-
MJ Technology is building an Ubuntu-based tablet as well.
-
I'm all for having multiple options with regards to tech.
But bringing a tablet to market, that cost $301.22 US doesn't really seem to target a specific audience. It feels as if someone said "It'll be cool if we do this" grabbed an android tablet, and built a linux distro for it.
Seems really odd.
-
It targets @Dashrender who likes a "full OS" on his tablet
-
Even the iPad Pro doesn't have a full OS on it yet.
So these units in this topic would be competitors to the Surface Pro.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Even the iPad Pro doesn't have a full OS on it yet.
So these units in this topic would be competitors to the Surface Pro.
Yes, in a way. Although as we discussed in the other thread, what exactly is the difference between a "full OS" and a "mobile OS" is not well defined.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It targets @Dashrender who likes a "full OS" on his tablet
LOL - nice! except it doesn't because tablets in general are something personally I've found no use for. On top of that, I'm not a daily, or even part time user of linux.
-
@scottalanmiller I would call a full OS something that has "Windows 7 Pro" or 10. Nothing specifically designed for a device set.
-
I honestly fine iOS to be so ideal for a tablet form factor, can't imagine actually wanting to have full Linux on one.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Even the iPad Pro doesn't have a full OS on it yet.
So these units in this topic would be competitors to the Surface Pro.
Yes, in a way. Although as we discussed in the other thread, what exactly is the difference between a "full OS" and a "mobile OS" is not well defined.
Yeah, it really boils down to the apps - As Paul Thurrott's kid said - who cares what OS it runs dad, as long as I can play my games!
And while I have emotional attachment to my Wind'ers machines I realized a while ago that the device/OS doesn't matter, getting the job done is what really matters.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I would call a full OS something that has "Windows 7 Pro" or 10. Nothing specifically designed for a device set.
That's not a good definition. You are backfilling. All of them are for specific devices. That's why you can't install Windows 7 on most tablets and vice versa. You can put Android on a desktop, the AppleTV is technically an iOS desktop.
-
We know, more or less, what we all mean by a "full OS" or a "mobile OS", but when the rubber meets the road, we actually find there isn't much other than intended use that separates them. An OS is an OS. The user of the terms have conventions attached to them, but they are only conventions and are not very strict.
The biggest difference, that I am surprised no one mentions, is that all major "full OS" products are designed to be multiple users and all "mobile OS" products are designed around single users.
-
But systems like iOS and Android have the full multiple-user systems under the hood, so it becomes only an exposure and interface thing.
-
Why can't a full OS be defined as what has always been a full OS.
Multiple user interface, with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
Hardware being the only limitation. Meaning, sure I won't be doing any High resolution rendering on a tablet of any OS. But why can't I at least install the software to see how it performs.
A scaled back application would in my opinion remove the OS from being a "Full OS", or more specifically, an application designed to be used on a less-than-powerful system which was built with mobility and a single user in mind, shouldn't have been designed in the first place.
There would have to be an extreme use case for wanting to do something, on a device never intended to do it.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Why can't a full OS be defined as what has always been a full OS.
Go ahead, try to define that.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Multiple user interface, with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
So not DOS or Windows until NT?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
...with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
What does that even mean? I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
But why can't I at least install the software to see how it performs.
You can, just get software compiled for the platform. That's nothing to do with the OS.
I think you are confusing an "impression" with a "definition." Just because people aren't bothering to build the apps on top of the platform that you want does not mean that the platform is something different.
Just because you love a car in green, doesn't mean that a car not available in green isn't a car.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
A scaled back application would in my opinion remove the OS from being a "Full OS
How does an application have anything to do with the situation? There are scaled back apps on every OS, so all OSes aren't full because someone else made a limited functionality app once?
-
But if only green cars can drive 100 MPH, than I'd better not be looking to buy a blue car that can only do 40 MPH. When in fact all I need is a green car that can go 100MPH.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
an application designed to be used on a less-than-powerful system which was built with mobility and a single user in mind, shouldn't have been designed in the first place.
So the issue is that you dislike things built to work well for their intended use and you are really only defining the two OS types by "what you like" and "what you don't like."
Can you actually provide a definition that can be used without subjectivity like "scaled back" or "how I want to use it" and one that is about the OS and not about how other people choose to use the OS?
