Talk:Openmoko

Vaporware?

evidence that this phone actually exists? my understanding was that it should now be out to developers, however I can see find no evidence that anyone has actually put their hands on a the physical unit. --Fredrick day 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

According to sources in the IRC channel the Neo1973 is scheduled for a developer release in the next few days. According to the official announcement, the developer release is scheduled for March 1, 2007. I have no reason (yet) to believe it is vaporware. pbryan 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

the most recent added link is telling, a demo unit that they were unwilling to power up.... I remain to be convinced. --Fredrick day 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw them talking about it on a conference. The classroom for their presentation probably has never been so crowded as then. I haven't seen a prototype either but I have seen an enormous enthousiasm and a better picture of the thing. The money is coming from a taiwanese phone provider. The phone is the product but the software on it is the more important result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.130 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 February 2007

And again it seems to be a static demo - still no proof that an actual device/product exists.--Fredrick day 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about FOSDEM 2007 (Feb 24, 25), you could see a working prototype of the Neo1973 at the OpenEmbedded booth. It was, however, running vanilla OpenEmbedded instead of Openmoko. Also, the case was white and had no "FIC" logo on it. I personally also have other strong reasons to believe that the device, as well as the software, exist and are on a straight way to be a successful cellphone. Balrog-kun 01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a photo of a Neo1973 in Chris Ball's blog next to a OLPC unit. Ball is a OLPC developer. In the screenshot you can see it running matchbox, which is what you get if you boot up the current state of OpenMoko in an emulator. All this code is freely available and has been for weeks. In IRC discussions Ball has discussed booting the Linux kernel on a Neo1973. So, the software exists, but is young, and the hardware is available, but to very few developers. Many more devices are expected to be in developers' hands within a month or so.... Jebba 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thirty six units have shipped to developers and a few have received them already. Another larger batch is expected to ship in around a month. Jebba 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At least fourteen more have received them, including me. I'm a bit uncomfortable adding a link to my own blog in the article as it feels a bit like violating Original Research. If someone else thinks it is OK, would they please add a link to http://baqaqi.chi.il.us/pfloss/mymoko.html#%5B%5BFirst%20Thoughts%5D%5D ? Piggy@baqaqi.chi.il.us 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

if you need photos as a non-vaporware proof: http://www.flickr.com/groups/openmoko/pool/

definitely I think it's not vaporware and today (2010) a quite active community is active on that project! imho you'd remove this section here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.149.147.21 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Expand

Come on people, WP is normally really good at getting info on new products. Anyone fancy beefing this up a bit? There are plenty of sources. Chris Cunningham 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on the free software task list. Maybe that'll help. Gronky 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a video that doesn't need flash?

The article has a link to a video, but the website requires Adobe Flash (which some people refuse to install since it is proprietary software). Does anyone know of a link to the actual video file which people can download and which everyone could watch? Thanks. Gronky 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

references

I agree that listing articles which could be used as references is useful. I moved the non-referenced links to a new "bibliography" section because non-references do not belong in a "references" section. They're not gone, they're just in a more accurately titled section. Gronky 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Flash video certainly doesn't belong in a section entitled "bibliography". I'm going to go though these, integrate those which are actually being used and remove the rest. Chris Cunningham 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My point isn't that those links are part of a "bibliography". If you want to change the name of that section (to something other than "references") or split it into multiple sections or delete it altogether, those things are all fine for me. Some, such as the video, should go in external links, now that I think about it. It seems that we both have the goal of putting that video link in the article somewhere so that someone will learn something and improve the article. Putting it in only as a reference reduces the chances that anyone will watch the video for learning purposes (because we'd be saying the video's only relevent value is to prove some particular statement). Anyway, it's up to you. Gronky 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OpenMoko wiki ripe for plundering

The content on the OpenMoko wiki on http://www.openmoko.org/ is under the same license as WP (and uses the nicest MonoBook variant I've seen on a MediaWiki). We should be stealoing mercilessly from it to drive this article to a good length and attract more editors.

As an aside, what would have to be done to set up a better interwiki experience here? Chris Cunningham 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

openmoko != neo1973

there's an ongoing discussion about this on the openmoko mailing list. the two are not the same - one is an open OS based on linux put together by a community of volunteers, one a piece of hardware made by a company trying to turn a profit. i've moved some detail about slipping dates for the neo to the neo article. it is important to keep them separate. forgetting they are separate has led to some angry exchanges on the list. Inzy 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• To that end, it might be better to find a better picture for this article (e.g. a screenshot, rather than hardware.) If more phones come out running OpenMoko it would be nice to put a picture of a few of them, but since there's only one it's difficult to separate the two using the Neo1973 picture. Tgoose 10:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Desktop Environment?

Elsewhere, I've seen people mention that OpenMoko will be using GTK+ (as opposed to Qt), but despite extensive searching, I can't figure out which desktop environment they're using. GPE would be the obvious choice, but perhaps they're developing a separate GTK-based environment...?

Fairly important information, I think, especially considering the target (geek) user. --Lode Runner 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this, it's a custom library built on top of GNOME's stack. Chris Cunningham 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Comparison of free software-based mobile phone platforms"

For your consideration: User:Fleminra/Comparison of free software-based mobile phone platforms. I wonder if it would get deleted if I moved it to the main namespace. —Fleminra 01:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

gPhone

Since the anonymous encyclopedicity police don't want this in the article, I'll put it here:

Phoronix has reported that Google is "looking to team up with OpenMoko" for the rumored gPhone. [Google Using OpenMoko For gPhone?] —Fleminra 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html neither FIC nor OpenMoko are part of the "Open Handset Alliance" (Androit/GPhone). In fact as it stands now, they would be competitors for a new open source phone operating system.Norsktroll 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused article

OK, we have a very confused (and confusing) article here.

First of all, OpenMoko is NOT a hardware platform, so I don't understand why there is so much material about the hardware platforms (primarily the FIC NEO* phones) in this article, including photos of the devices. It makes people believe that OpenMoko is a phone, which it is not - it is a software platform. Screenshots are OK, but photos of the devices are not.

Descriptions of the devices themselves should move to their own articles. In fact, the Neo1973 already has an article, which should be pointed to. The NEOrunner can also be added to that article, or a separate article can be created.

Then we should clean up this article and clarify what OpenMoko is, before confusing any more people who come here seeking clarity.

Any objections?

Achitnis (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea!

I did some reading on both the openmoko.com and openmoko.org websites, and concluded that Openmoko breaks down like this:

• "Openmoko" is the title of a meta-project which encompasses both an operating system and a line of hardware.

• "Openmoko Linux" is the name of the operating system. (It is referred to as "the OpenMoko Linux Distribution" in this article: )

• "Openmoko phones" are the line of hardware, which includes the Neo1973 etc.

I just went ahead and split the article in two accordingly. Tell me what you think : )

InternetMeme (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the hardware subsection doesn't need a separate page at this length. It'll probably grow one day and this page can be filled with Openmoko company information, meanwhile most people hitting this page are either looking for the software or the hardware sub-projects or both of them and at least the basic info on the hardware belongs here - including a picture. If someone has a suitable picture of the Openmoko offices building in Taiwan or Beijing (I forgot exactly which one was FIC and which was Openmoko), then it also belong in this page IMHO.

Most phone vendors have a pic of their product on their WP page. For comparison the android page (which is a software stack) contains pictures. Balrog-kun (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does "No lunchbox" mean under the "Neo FreeRunner" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.183.112 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the box in which the advanced version of Neo 1973 was sold. As it seems to be unclear I'll remove the sentence.--Galadh (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ClosedMoko ?

Where is link for the phone's schematic (can't find on their wiki) ? Some of the ICs used even miss datasheets. It's either fully open, or it isn't open at all. I can run linux on Siemens SX1 - maybe it should also be called OpenSX1 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.140.96 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

False dilemma. They tried to be as open as possible (going as far as opening the CAD schematic for the phone's case). It's possibly the most open cell phone so far. However, there are some limits (for instance, as far as I know there is no GSM chipset which does not require a NDA). The GSM chipset, in fact, is most probably the reason they do not have the schematic for the main PCB (they do have the schematic for the debug board and the GTA02 battery). --cesarb (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

USB port ?

Does OpenMoko hardware has USB device or USB host, 1.1 or 2.0, or no USB ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.163.124 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the Neo1973 and Neo Freerunner has a USB-port, and can do both host and device USB 1.1. Freerunner has powerd USB, Neo1973 has not. --81.172.223.220 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GTA

According to this page on the Openmoko wiki, GTA probably stands for Generic Telephone Appliance. --81.172.223.220 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish word "moco"

Hi! I'm bringing up this topic here on the talk page in order to avoid an edit war. Currently (13 July 2008) the section Etymology contains information about the Spanish word moco. I think that this information should not be included in the article. As a person who does not speak Spanish this translation is not of any interest for me. I think that those readers who speak Spanish whon't need this information either because they already know about the meaning of this word. Furthermore I think that the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may apply here, but I'm not sure. I think that Wiktionary is the right place for this information. I'd appreciate further comments by other users, especially by 98.165.104.228 so we can decide whether to keep or to discard this information. --Galadh (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia... "Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time."

So in my opinion the Spanish translation does not belong here either. That is, unless the people who came up with the name OpenMoko admit they wanted or intended the name OpenMoko to also be a pun of some sorts. So unless the Spanish word moco contributed to the origin of the current name, it shouldn't be here. But that's just my two cents. — Ewald || ^contact talk | email || ^info user | contrib || ^{posted on} 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit is vandalism. The whole etymology section is original research and almost certainly nonsense, and should be deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OpenMoko, Inc.

Anybody has noticed that OpenMoko, Inc. is the entity that controls [1] and [2]? I'm not sure what that entails, but this article makes it seem like this is a community project, instead of a company... However, I am not sure how to approach this, since there is not enough information for me to correct the current information. --Andresj (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)