Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Portables Linux

Intel and Nokia Provide First MeeGo Release 115

Posted by kdawson
from the you-go-too dept.
wehe writes "The first fruit of the cooperation between Intel and Nokia is available: the first release of MeeGo. MeeGo is a merge of the former Maemo and Moblin Linux distros. What is available now is 'The MeeGo distribution infrastructure and the operating system base from the Linux kernel to the OS infrastructure up to the middleware layer. The MeeGo architecture is based on a common core across the different usage models, such as netbooks, handheld, in-vehicle, and connected TV.' The images available now for download are suitable for Intel Atom-based netbooks, ARM-based Nokia N900, and Intel Atom-based handset (Moorestown). RPM repositories as well as git source repositories are there for download, too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel and Nokia Provide First MeeGo Release

Comments Filter:
  • by loutr (626763) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:17AM (#31705656)

    "Posted by kdawson on 14:55 Friday 02 April 2010"

    That's what I see under the post title. Is that what you're talking about ? If so, yes, you can change the date format in your preferences.

  • Re:Disappointing (Score:5, Informative)

    by ultrabot (200914) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:17AM (#31705662)

    I cannot imagine that switching to a Fedora base will make anything better, and I expect it will make many things worse.

    MeeGo is not using Fedora base, it's a new distribution that happens to use RPM.

    While it probably was not reason for the switch (they cite existing infrastructure and people intel have in place), RPM packaging is allegedly easier than Debian packaging (only need to edit one file and you are good to go).

  • First DEVEL release (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:45AM (#31705830)
    Is not yet a desktop, it boots into a terminal. Don't install it in your (main?) N900 or replace your main operating system in your netbook with it, if you aren't developing applications for it and want to test them there. But can be installed in a USB key and test it from there if you are curious.
  • by catbertscousin (770186) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:47AM (#31705846)

    There is an amazing lack of information about MeeGo.

    Not surprising, really. They take the brains of anyone who finds out too much about them and put them in cases for transport to other worlds for study while the ones on earth use the bodies to blend in with humanity. If you're going looking for info, I'd invest in some big, mean dogs. They don't like dogs.

  • Re:Encouraging (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rysc (136391) * <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:21AM (#31706074) Homepage Journal

    You can't tell only if you don't want to tell. While it's not easily exposed this information is effectively available.

    $ ls -l /var/lib/dpkg/info/packagename.list

    The datestamp on this should correspond to when you installed it.

    Debian is a far, far better platform for building distributions than Fedora or any RPM-based distro that I've seen. I understand that Intel had 'expertise' already in doing it the RPM way, but this is a poor excuse for doing harm to your customers.

  • by Weezul (52464) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:23AM (#31706090)

    The N900 supports reading Word Processor and Spreadsheet files just fine under Maemo, probably even edits them, but you must buy the app for that from Nokia's Ovi Store. Can't you just see the positive impact Apple has had already? Btw, you've also got several other free readers based around various Linux office suites, but Nokia doesn't polish those.

    I'm pretty happy with my N900 over all, especially ssh, rsync, and x11vnc. Very solid VoIP integration. Awesome unixy apps like python, latex, vpnc, etc. You'll find the phone quite "raw" of course, like most apps don't support rotation, but overall worthwhile. I'd expect the next hardware revision from Nokia will give you a considerably more polished experience of course.

  • Re:Disappointing (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:25AM (#31706104)

    "yum update"

    There now, that wasn't so hard.

  • Re:Encouraging (Score:5, Informative)

    by CAIMLAS (41445) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:10AM (#31706538) Homepage

    Debian package manipulation tools are more advanced/mature and are able to gracefully deal with fringe conditions/scenarios than RPM. While the packages may be easier to make, the end result appears to be:

    * Debian distros degrade much more gracefully over time/use.
    * Upgrades and non-standard (IE 3rd party repository) packages tend to not break things as severely.
    * The package system is somewhat more atomic, allowing for function even with broken packages.
    * You are able to (statefully) recover from source-based installs as well as non-packaged binary installs.

  • Re:Encouraging (Score:3, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:24PM (#31707308) Homepage Journal

    Could you explain these in a way that somebody used to RPM could understand?

    * Debian distros degrade much more gracefully over time/use.

    What does this mean? That you can leap several major versions without dependency resolution problems? The feature of debian's system that I miss in a Fedora system is multiple concurrent versions of the same package, so maybe that's what you're getting at?

    * Upgrades and non-standard (IE 3rd party repository) packages tend to not break things as severely.

    I use several 3rd-party repos with Fedora and haven't seen any breakage, much less severe. There was a time when poor repo maintainers would do things like publish their own kernels randomly with higher version numbers, but that evolved repo prioritization.

    How does debian improve this?

    * The package system is somewhat more atomic, allowing for function even with broken packages.

    Do you mean the packages tend to be bundled more loosely (one library per package, etc.)? That seems like a human decision. How does an RPM-based system fail to function if there's a broken package? Usually, broken packages refuse to install.

    * You are able to (statefully) recover from source-based installs as well as non-packaged binary installs.

    How does debian improve on the rpm-based method of re-installing (optionally rebuilding) the affected package?

    TIA.

  • Re:Encouraging (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rysc (136391) * <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @01:40PM (#31708190) Homepage Journal

    I use several 3rd-party repos with Fedora and haven't seen any breakage, much less severe.

    "Works for me" is not the same as robust and bug free.

    Debian has a long history of working well with "third party" repos--this is because Debian was *designed* to be a base with "third party" repos layered on top. Fedora was not designed this way and (last I knew) was a bit schizophrenic when it comes to non-main repos. In Debian this use case was handled years before yum was even written.

    There was a time when poor repo maintainers would do things like publish their own kernels randomly with higher version numbers, but that evolved repo prioritization.

    Another feature Debian had long before Fedora got it (except that apt pinning can work at the package level, too). This is useful to illustrate why Debian is better at package management: As in this case, Debian has had a longer history and has hit a wide range of use cases, corner cases and issues. This doesn't mean rpm/yum won't become as good eventually, it just means it is perpetually behind the curve. Even if there were no inherent differences or superiorities to apt this would be a good reason to use it in favor of yum.

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...