Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider)
LinuxInsider
looks at
the Garmin Nuvifone G60.
"Is there a market for a $300 proprietary Linux-based navigation device with phone capabilities? Garmin's Nuvifone will put that question to the test. Known for its navigators, Garmin might be following Palm's playbook by adding phone capabilities. Given the popularity of the iPhone, the advance of the Androids, Palm's struggle to push the Pre -- can the Nuvifone find a niche?"
(Log in to post comments)
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:14 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] In this case, the fact that there is Linux inside is not particularly relevant. As integration increases, people who used to make mobile phones add GPS functionality, and people who used to make hand-held GPS units add phone functionality. The device would look much the same to the user if it had Linux, Win CE, or something else inside.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:15 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
More to the point, does any portable gadget that isn't a phone have a future? They're acknowledging that if they can't plug into phones, they'd better have a phone in their gadget. It's probably doomed, because people also want their music player in there, and camera, and every damn thing else they can think of, if it's not just a minimal phone. When they get one with Android on it they might do a little better.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:21 UTC (Wed) by hugoroy (subscriber, #60577) [Link]
"Built on Mobil Linux
The Nuvifone G60's operating system is a proprietary build based on "a variation of Mobil Linux," Garmin spokesperson Jessica Myers told LinuxInsider."
Since when a Linux-derived operating system can be proprietary?
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:32 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
GPLv3 says no, GPLv2 says yes.
As in "We will give you the source code for some part of it, but we do everything (including technological and legal hurdles) we can to make sure you can't actually do anything with it on our product."
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:36 UTC (Wed) by hugoroy (subscriber, #60577) [Link]
So it's more "Tivoization" than "proprietary" operating system, isn't it? I mean, the operating system in this mobile device, is licensed under GPL!
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:41 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
If you can't use the source code then what is the point? Proprietary userland with signed kernel. You can't hack it, you can't change it. Maybe if your making another phone or want to learn how it works or something like that it may be useful.
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'proprietary'.
Hell, from what I know breaking the signature system on the bootloader could net you a DMCA violation.
All I know is that I have zero interest in it.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 21:48 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
do you know that it is locked down like that?
or are you just assuming?
personally I prefer a tivoized linux based phone to a proprietary system because with the tivoized phone I only have to break the boot protection, not reverse engineer the entire phone
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 1, 2009 4:49 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Just assuming. But I think its a safe assumption...
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 22:10 UTC (Wed) by hugoroy (subscriber, #60577) [Link]
I agree with you. I am just talking about licensing issues here, because so far it's the only true way to define free from proprietary software (because it is the license which grants the 4 freedoms).
The fact is that the device is proprietary but only because of tivoization. So indeed, you are not granted the 4 freedoms as you should be with the software.
I have no interest either :)
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Sep 30, 2009 22:38 UTC (Wed) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
The word "proprietary" can also mean something like "customized" or "unique to our product" -- for instance, rsync uses a proprietary protocol in this sense.
No idea if that's how they meant it or not, but it might be. Business-folk don't always distinguish the two meanings very carefully.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 1, 2009 9:39 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite so. It always gives me a case of cognitive dissonance when I hear people using 'proprietary' as if it were a *good* thing.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 2, 2009 21:51 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I just wish people would use "proprietary" in its PROPER meaning, ie "property of". By that definition, pretty much all software (ie anything that isn't pre-Berne American) is proprietary.
By thinking "proprietary == bad" you're drinking the MS kool-aid - it was them that redefined the word with their "Unix is proprietary, Windows is open" campaign many moons ago.
Cheers,
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 3, 2009 2:40 UTC (Sat) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
I'm not too worried about words and their "proper" (historical?) meaning, but if you have a better way to express the sentiment that what-we-call-proprietary software is bad -- then, by all means, please share.
There is still no perfect device for openstreetmap use :( Posted Sep 30, 2009 22:10 UTC (Wed) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link]
Here is what a lot of active Openstreetmappers would immediately buy:
* Waterproof casing and handlebar mount for bicycle (like Garmin GPSmap etc)
I think the Nuvifone will have a hard time to compete with the Nokia N900 which has everyting the Nuvifone has but is a fully open platform. Looks like the only think in advance for the Nuvifone would be the cheaper price.
Sven
There is still no perfect device for openstreetmap use :( Posted Oct 1, 2009 2:05 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
N900/Maemo has some proprietary blobs (a notable one is responsible for battery charging):
There is still no perfect device for openstreetmap use :( Posted Oct 1, 2009 15:12 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Surely the #1 feature for OSM mapping is an accurate, sensitive GPS receiver?
In cities with tall buildings, there is (so I hear) a lot of difference between a unit with a good antenna and recent chipset, and a bog standard GPS that you might find in a cheap phone.
According to the review, this phone has a good GPS unit, but still
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:31 UTC (Thu) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
A *proprietary* system could be Open-Source and free. For example, I create a piece of hardware and edit Linux to only work on my piece of hardware, then I release the code and licence the code for free and make my money off hardware sales.
I am not saying this is what they are doing, just trying to create an extreme example.
A real example would be link in a bunch of closed source binary modules that control the bulk of the hardware, but that example is not as exciting.
Or the Linux kernel is open, but all the user space programs are closed which control the system.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 1, 2009 14:05 UTC (Thu) by svkelley (guest, #37299) [Link]
Garmin's approach is fairly typical. Due to the licensing required for content such as maps, voices,
and other associated data, agreements are typically in place to assure they are protected. That usually means you have to lock down the device from mods/hacks. Not saying it is good. Basically tivoisation.
Garmin Takes a New Tack With Linux-Based Nav Phone (LinuxInsider) Posted Oct 1, 2009 15:06 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well what I would like to see is people would license data from map makers for open source applications like gpsdrive. I don't think that map makers require DRM to protect their IP as there are plenty of tools to do data conversion from one type of map format to another. So it would be nice if I could spend 25 or 50 dollars on a map for open source software.
A similar arrangement has been made for Mythtv users so that I can subscribe to television listings for a year at a time.
Subscribing to databases seem like a perfectly acceptable thing to me for open source software. OpenStreet maps is cool and is often more up to date then the map data on those garmins, but I would still like the ability to use multiple data sources.
Amnesia? Posted Oct 1, 2009 16:43 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I don't think that map makers require DRM to protect their IP. You should know better. I know this for a fact since your comments are still there. Remember?: The terms of the license that we signed include a promise by us to prevent anyone from accessing the data other than through Google software. Violations of this promise (such as Gaia source out in the world) not only cost us money and force the disruption by forced upgrade of 100M+ users as we change protocols, they actually put our entire operation at risk since the data providers lose trust that their data, which they sell directly, is out there for free and could put them out of business. I'm pretty sure Google does have a good contract in place and smaller fishes (like Garmin) get even worse contracts. As there are plenty of tools to do data conversion from one type of map format to another. Sure. Sign a contract for $10'000-$100'000, get the data - and of you go. Not something you'd want for a GPS unit. Usually small pieces of data are sold in open formats - if you want the whole country... it's either very expensive contract (with a lot of conditions) or DRM. So it would be nice if I could spend 25 or 50 dollars on a map for open source software. Sure. But right now prices are not in the same ballpack. You get pretty crippled data and you are required to use DRM. If it's broken too often - you can lose the contract and access to the updates. Subscribing to databases seem like a perfectly acceptable thing to me for open source software. OpenStreet maps is cool and is often more up to date then the map data on those garmins, but I would still like the ability to use multiple data sources. That's why there is hope: map date becomes a commodity and so prices are dropping. They are still pretty far from $25-50 for sizable map. May be few districts can be bought for this amount - but then it's pretty easy to do it manualy in such quantities...
Amnesia? Posted Oct 1, 2009 19:20 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> You should know better. I know this for a fact since your comments are still there. Remember?:
It does not say anything in that page that Google Earth uses DRM to protect it's map data. It's just that they did not want other people to use Google's Earth map data.
------------------
All I am looking for is the ability for individuals to purchase and use maps in open source software. I expect it would be very expensive for open source projects to import the maps of entire fucking country and ship it with their software, but that is NOT what I am discribing nor want.
Has anybody ever tried that before? Is there information on what companies create and distribute the maps and what the costs and terms are? I can't seem to find any information on that stuff.
Providers don't care about DRM Posted Oct 2, 2009 1:28 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] All I am looking for is the ability for individuals to purchase and use maps in open source software. I expect it would be very expensive for open source projects to import the maps of entire fucking country and ship it with their software, but that is NOT what I am discribing nor want. What's the difference? Has anybody ever tried that before? Is there information on what companies create and distribute the maps and what the costs and terms are? I can't seem to find any information on that stuff. Sure. There are very few such companies but two biggest ones are out "good old friends" Nokia and TopTom. In both cases they have not started as mapmakers - they bought Navteq and TeleAtlas. There are also regional providers. And they don't sell the data with no strings attached: you must sign a contract where you explain how the data will be used, by who, how the royalties will be paid (do you know Google pays them per-view, not flat rate?), etc, etc. This is where DRM comes from: how else can you gurantee that all views will be counted? If you can offer open-source solution - sure, they'll consider it. But I'm not sure how it'll be possible...
|
|||||||||||||