Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
MeeGo 1.1 released
The MeeGo
1.1 release is available; the netbook, "in-vehicle infotainment," and
handset versions have all been updated. "The 1.1 Core OS provides a
complete set of enabling technologies for mobile computing. The MeeGo stack
contains Linux Kernel 2.6.35, X.org server 1.9.0, Web Runtime, Qt 4.7, and
Qt Mobility 1.0.2, supporting the contacts, location, messaging,
multimedia, and sensor and service frameworks. It also includes a number of
leading edge components, such as the oFono telephony stack, the ConnMan
connection manager, the Tracker data indexer, the Telepathy real-time
communications framework, the Buteo sync framework, and many more."
(Log in to post comments)
In other news... Posted Oct 28, 2010 17:57 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link] In other news, Nokia N900 PR 1.3 is available, which should make it easier to dual boot with MeeGo.
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 28, 2010 19:25 UTC (Thu) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
Yes, but will it run on my Clarion MiND GPS?
It came stock with moblin, and now moblin is dead.
So where's my MeeGo, Clarion? I can't even watch youtube on this thing anymore since the scripts are broken!
Sadly, I ended up installing Windows XP on it to make it usable again.
But I'd still like to see a MeeGo image for the MiND.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 19:59 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Please tell me this is for passengers and not drivers. We have enough idiots causing carnage while driving and texting or talking on cell phones; we don't want more carnage because someone's watching a funny cat on Youtube instead of the road.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 20:24 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
don't forget the other distractions
singing along with the radio
cursing at talk show hosts
yelling at kids who are fighting
these all have to be banned to keep the roads safe.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 20:39 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
I'm not sure if these are so big distractions, because the driver keeps her eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. Selecting a new youtube clip is something different... I'm more than uneasy when the taxi driver selects the address while driving.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 21:48 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
acutally, frequently people are not keeping their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road when doing these things, they definitely do not have their attention on the road.
if the issue is hands on the wheel, then you need to forbid people drinking and eating in their cars.
note that there are now studies that show that talking on a hands-free phone is just as dangerous as holding a conversation while holding the phone.
the 'funny' thing is that if they succeded in banning all these 'distractions' from vehicles, then studies would show that the monotony of a long drive would be the most dangerous thing.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 23:30 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> if the issue is hands on the wheel, then you need to forbid people drinking and eating in their cars.
That is already illegal in some places. Some people probably consider cup holders a crime against humanity, also.
The problem with the laws is the fact that they don't really help any. Might as well make it illegal to have a bad attitude or smelly farts for all the good it will do you.
All you have to do is make it illegal to drive like a jackass while distracted and leave at at that. It's called 'negligent driving'. They could be drunk, stoned, on pain medication, jacking off, putting on make up, reading a book, yelling at the guy in the car next to them, day dreaming, preparing food, yelling at their husband or children, etc etc. What? Are you going to make individual law for each and every stupid thing that people do when they should be paying attention to driving?
All you need for punishment is the Judge to say: "This is the 3rd time you've been caught being a idiot behind the wheel and endangering the lives of everybody around you. You have 60 days to sell every vehicle in your possession and your ability to own a driver's license is revoked for at least 10 years. Welcome to the fine world of bicycles and public transportation."
I have a pretty strong suspicion that the majority of laws like 'no talking on cell phones' is more about generating government income through more opportunities for writing redundant tickets then anything else.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:06 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] The problem with the laws is the fact that they don't really help any. That is completely false. When strict DUI laws are introduced and enforced, there's a measurable decrease in impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes. A study (PDF) at the University of Utah shows that cell phone use is more impairing than alcohol intoxication at 0.08%.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:40 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yet while the amount of drunk drivers go down the amount of fatalities on the road go up.
> A study (PDF) at the University of Utah shows that cell phone use is more impairing than alcohol intoxication at 0.08%.
So... your just proving my point. How many other things are dangerous? Cell phone talking is just one of dozens possible things that people do to impair their driving?
Are you going to wait till you hear a study on 'putting makeup is OMG worse then talking on cell phones' then make a 'putting on makeup' law?
THAT is why it's stupid and pointless.
Maybe if I put it in terms of Operating Systems you'll understand:
Say a vendor shipped a web server with 10,000 buggy PHP applications. It gets widely used for whatever reason. Now a worm is released to the public that attacks just one of the buggy PHP applications. So the vendor releases a patch that fixes that one buggy applications.
Would you consider it a job well done now that you have 9,999 buggy PHP apps instead of 10,000? Well I know I would not find that acceptable. I doubt you would or that anybody would.
Yet passing laws specifically targeting one specific behavior out of tens of thousands of possible behavior that will lead to a accident is a victory for society and will help keep us all safe?
Basically, if you think that cell phones should be illegal then it would be better to just give the police power to pull over anybody driving while distracted. That way you cover all cases.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:42 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> Yet while the amount of drunk drivers go down the amount of fatalities on the road go up.
Shit. I meant to edit that out. It was a stupid mistake on my part.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:59 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Here are the statistics if anybody interested.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
What I am curious about is the ratio of accidents in general vs fatal accidents. I am curious to what the impact of improved technology and people
The number of motorcyclists deaths seem to indicate this. Motorcycles are as deadly as they always have been. Beyond improvements like anti-lock brakes there is not much that can be done to make them safer.
* If I remember correctly most fatal accidents, especially involving alcohol or excessive speed, tend to be one car accidents. So in that case SUVs and larger sedans would offer significant advantages to survivability versus the smaller cars people drove in the 80's and early 90's and such.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 1:06 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] It's quite possible that safer cars have had a much more significant impact on saving people's lives then stricter traffic laws I think safer cars have made things safer, but laws have had an effect too. If you look at the statistics you posted, pedestrian fatalities have decreased as well. I don't think safer cars would reduce pedestrian fatalities (with the possible exception of anti-lock brakes.) Or maybe fewer Americans walk nowadays. :)
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 3:40 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
They actually do, rather significantly. Have you noticed that large, angular hoods have been replaced by more sloping surfaces, creases have been smoothed out, panels are more flexible, and you can't get massive bull bars from the factory anymore? It's not just aesthetics.
A good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_ve...
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 14:43 UTC (Fri) by ggiunta (guest, #30983) [Link]
Larger cars (read SUVs) have been demonstrated to be safer for the passangers, but much more deadly for pedestrians and cyclists they get in contact with. Is it a good thing? Your choice...
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 30, 2010 23:59 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The other major factor in fatals is where one vehicle is much larger than the other.
iiuc, lorries are banned on German motorways during the rush hour for exactly this reason - a ten car pile up AT SPEED is not normally fatal - until a lorry hits the wreckage!
Cheers,
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:49 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] How many other things are dangerous? Cell phone talking is just one of dozens possible things that people do to impair their driving? First of all, many studies have shown that cell phone use and texting is far more dangerous than most other activities. Secondly, what's your point? If you agree that many drivers are dangerously distracted already, it's therefore OK to distract them further with in-car "infotainment" systems??
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 1:01 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Basically, if you think that cell phones should be illegal then it would be better to just give the police power to pull over anybody driving while distracted. Police already have that power. But they are under-staffed and can't be everywhere. Also, "driving while distracted" is quite subjective. It's easy to get DUI convictions if you blow over the limit (it's an objective measurement) and it's easy to convict someone for texting while driving (again, it's objective.) What we need to is stigmatize the use of gadgets that impair driving the way we do alcohol impairment. I fear that will not happen until thousands more lives are lost.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:00 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] While those other things are distracting, they don't require you to shift your gaze away from the road. There are plenty of studies showing cell phone use is far more distracting than those other things. See for example http://articles.cnn.com/2001-08-16/us/cell.phone.driving_1_hand-held-cell-cell-phone-driver-distractions?_s=PM:US, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/what-clown-on-a-unicycle-studying-cell-phone-distraction/ and http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf The hazards of cell-phone use and texting while driving have been known for years. I think any car manufacturer that installs an "infotainment" system should be sued into bankruptcy. It's no better than giving drivers a few beers before they head off.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:10 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there is one huge difference between driving drunk and driving distracted.
you can stop the distractions fairly quickly (i.e. hang up or drop the phone), you can't stop being drunk quickly.
there are studies that show that banning cell phone use has made little or no difference.
all that equating the two situations does in the long term is to diminish the apparent severity of drunk driving. In the short term it scares people into silly laws and benifits hands-free device manufacturers, but now we are seeing studies that say that talking on a hands-free phone is just about as bad as talking while holding the phone. this is the next step down the slope.
the worst thing is that by passing laws that are widely ignored, it diminishes respect for all laws.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:56 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] there are studies that show that banning cell phone use has made little or no difference. I tend to believe that, for two reasons (though I'd still appreciate a citation of the studies.) 1. Cell phone and texting bans are not enforced as rigorously as DUI laws. You don't have periodic anti-texting blitzes, public-service announcements, Mothers Against Texting Drivers, etc. 2. A DUI conviction is a huge social stigma. Until we as a society decide to stigmatize other forms of driving impairment, people won't take the problem seriously. What many people don't realize is that driving is incredibly dangerous. Imagine a factory that forced people to work within a couple of metres of one-ton chunks of metal flying by at 50 km/hour. The factory has no guard-rails or any barrier between the workers and the metal chunks. It would be shut down for workplace safety violations in a trice. Yet this is exactly what millions of people expose themselves to every day crossing the street. Every month in the United States, more people are killed in traffic accidents than died in the 9/11 attacks. But people still treat driving as a joke. The one saving grace is that the United States is incredibly litigious, so at some point an in-car infotainment manufacturer will be sued out of existence. :)
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 10:14 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
>the worst thing is that by passing laws that are widely ignored, it diminishes respect for all laws.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Each individual should respect only those laws that are reasonable, in his own opinion. When it comes to obeying those laws a little pragmatism is probably appropriate.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 31, 2010 8:20 UTC (Sun) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
So, if someone find DUI-laws "unreasonable", he should have the right to break them? Gotcha.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Nov 1, 2010 0:28 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
No but you might choose to ignore laws which you strongly disagree with. Of course there are consequences to disobedience and it might be up to a jury to decide your fate.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Nov 3, 2010 11:50 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] Everyone already has the right to break laws. It would be difficult to remove this right. I am merely suggesting that it is morally correct to follow your own convictions when they differ with what the law declares you must do, with the caveat that you should also balance your desire not to be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned with your desire to follow your convictions. No law deserves your respect just because it is a law.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 31, 2010 0:07 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Please name me just ONE jurisdiction that has banned cellphone use.
To the best of my (limited) knowledge there are NO jurisdictions that have done so. Plenty have banned handhelds, yes, but I don't know of any that have banned hands-free, despite all the evidence saying there is no significant difference between the two.
Cheers,
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 31, 2010 1:52 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
here in california we are starting to hear the rumbles about all cell phone use now that handheld use is outlawed and studies are showing that there isn't a lot of difference between hands-free and handheld distraction
the comments are very similar to those that were made about handheld use when that flap started to gain steam.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 14:28 UTC (Fri) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link]
Some people need to look up risk compensation up on wikipedia.
Basically, people tolerate a certain amount of risk in their daily life and if you try to make certain activities safer they will just alter their behavior in other ways to eliminate the safety improvement.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 28, 2010 21:27 UTC (Thu) by foo-bar (guest, #22971) [Link]
I don't think I'll be watching a movie while driving, but all normal people talk on the phone while driving because it's exactly the right time to do all your phone calls)). Whatever authorities say, nothing bad really happens))
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:02 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] but all normal people talk on the phone while driving because it's exactly the right time to do all your phone calls Sure, if you want to kill someone. Why not chug back a few beers while you're at it? I cited a bunch of studies in a comment on this article. Why don't you read a few of them?
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 3:02 UTC (Fri) by foo-bar (guest, #22971) [Link]
Clearly I don't want to kill anybody.
Why should I read those funny studies trying to investigate some artificial situations ? Of course insurance companies want to minimise the damage to cars that happens in minor accidents, and they'll sponsor whatever study that suggests that EVERYTHING should be prohibited.
They don't want us talk, eat, smoke, do make-up they want to prohibit everything basically they don't want is to live, they think it's too dangerous, and ideally they'd replace us with robots.))
Pretty much every reasonable person understands that drunk driving is dangerous. Not from the funny studies but
On the other hand pretty much every reasonable person would chat on the phone, drink cola, do make-up and so on (unless being afraid to get a ticket).
And of course there is no statistics showing that driving got more dangerous after everyone got a cellphone and started using it in the car.
P.S. On the other hand back to the original topic I still think that watching a movie/TV or having sex while driving is a bit too dangerous...))
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 6:08 UTC (Fri) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]
People have developed customs of alcohol consumption over millenia, but have been driving automobiles for just over 100 years. It is not surprising that it is taking a while to adopt an ancient custom to a modern technology (especially when you considered that the ancient custom developed along with the technology of the donkey cart, where the inebriated "driver" could sleep on the way back from the pub because the donkey knew the way home, where the donkey's dinner was waiting).
Cell phones are a new technology that has been developed independently of another new technology. And now we are making cell phones "smart", although they are still not as smart as donkeys finding their way home to dinner with a drunken "driver".
The point is, we still haven't adjusted properly to driving automobiles. Besides seat belts, we need helmets and heads up displays, as well as extensive training that many people would not be able to pass. But if we did this, driving automobiles would become much less competitive, cost wise, as other forms of public transportation, including urban planning.
But most people are still at the level of the donkey cart, so...
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 11:59 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
And, yes, in the end I suspect they will replace us all with robots. Self-driving cars are years away, not decades. Fifty to a hundred years from now I suspect operating manually-driven cars on public roads will be illegal.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 14:22 UTC (Fri) by foo-bar (guest, #22971) [Link]
Unfortunately :-(
And the problem is that there will always be people supporting this. I think the way it works is:
* Wow, I heard it's a bit dangerous!
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 12:53 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] On the other hand pretty much every reasonable person would chat on the phone, drink cola, do make-up and so on You have a very different definition of "reasonable" from most people. All of those activities are extremely hazardous to do while driving. I would certainly not call a person who does them "reasonable".
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 29, 2010 0:28 UTC (Fri) by ferringb (subscriber, #20752) [Link]
You're assuming IVI is strictly automotive, and for watching movies; it includes gps/navigation, bluetooth dialing, and general media- primarily sound/radio in this case, but video is definitely applicable if the vehicle is non moving or for passengers, at least from a usage scenario.
Keep in mind, while "In-Vehicle Infotainment" is a horrible marketing term, it covers Planes, Train, and Automobiles in it's area. Each has it's own variation of what is allowable (despite the humour inherent, no twittering while the device is in motion for example is valid for automotive, but not for the other potentials).
Please don't try to bait people here Posted Oct 30, 2010 23:41 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I can't believe the number of people who were baited by this. Obviously there are many ways to use your smartphone while you are not operating a vehicle, and indeed are not crossing the street on foot, operating power tools, etc. We are rapidly approaching a time when the main computer of many people may be one running what we today call a mobile OS, but its main context will not be mobile. Perhaps it is not coming fast enough, but practical self-piloting automobiles are probably less than 20 years away. At that point, it will probably make more sense to prohibit those under 21 from driving rather than drinking, and use of distracting devices will not be a problem.
Please don't try to bait people here Posted Oct 31, 2010 1:55 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if you raise the minimum driving age to 40, the age group that will have the most accidents is the 40-45 age group.
it takes time to learn to be a good driver, and it takes time behind the wheel in real-world situations. whenever people first start driving they are not going to be as good.
In fact, I would expect that the problems with 40-45 year old drivers would be worse than the problems with 16-21 year old drivers, because the 16-21 year old drivers have better reflexes, and so while they get into more dangerous situations, they also have better reflexes to get out of them again.
"In-Vehicle Infotainment"? Posted Oct 31, 2010 18:44 UTC (Sun) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
Did you not get the memo ? Cars are more and more driving themselfs. They are already driving on public roads in Germany and in the US. :-)
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 28, 2010 20:35 UTC (Thu) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133) [Link]
I downloaded the netbook UX, it seems it's still based on clutter/mx/gtk+ but there's hardly a mention of it in the website.
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 28, 2010 23:25 UTC (Thu) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link]
Correct, in 1.1 the Netbook UI is still based on the same technologies as it was on 1.0; the conversion/convergence to the Qt/QtQuick/etc stack is not completed yet.
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 29, 2010 9:38 UTC (Fri) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
I really hope his video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHC_rFJJLGQ is no indication on how fast it will run.
If the handset UI isn't Froyo/iOS/Bada/WebOS2.0/WP7 smooth and fast Nokia and Intel shouldn't bother releasing devices with it
And I really don't see any really compelling feature yet. QML and Quick offer so much promise for a really smooth and fast and organic UI, but that is nowhere to be seen. At best Meego seems to be able to compete with the weakest on the above list, Bada. But that would be just a Also-Ran-Product, I hope Nokia and Intel are a little more ambitious.
I think MS really did the "glance and go" thing all wrong. Those devices have high res screen but you still see a bunch of number of how many emails, calls and SMS you got.
You really need to Wow people, "just" providing a really open platform is not something that will sell by itself.
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 29, 2010 3:45 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Fitting that barely any of the comments on this article are about MeeGo. Maybe everyone's waiting to see what toolkit they're going to change next month.
Given its heritage, it's surprising that it's such a developer-hostile platform. Ah well.
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 29, 2010 16:28 UTC (Fri) by sumC (subscriber, #1262) [Link]
How many toolkit changes have they made? Exactly one that I'm aware of...
MeeGo 1.1 released Posted Oct 29, 2010 21:04 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Ack, brain damage. I meant to say infrastructure. Swapping rpm and deb was pretty disruptive, and there are a bunch of smaller things too. Any one would be fine but all taken together it feels very CADT.
|
|||||||||||||