Oz / Gpe

[Antikx]

Hello,

I haven't tried OZ yet but from what I've read the OZ / GPE environment sounds like it might interest me.

"GPE, a X/GTK based environment which aims to give you full featured graphic environment like you are used to on a ‘normal’ computer."

-Does it use GTK+?
-Can you recompile your X86, Linux, PC, apps/games for OZ/GPE like people are doing for pdaXrom?
-Please point me to more GPE documentation that you think might interest me.

[lardman]

-Does it use GTK+?

Yes.

-Can you recompile your X86, Linux, PC, apps/games for OZ/GPE like people are doing for pdaXrom?

Yes.

-Please point me to more GPE documentation that you think might interest me.

Try http://gpe.handhelds.org, and #gpe on irc.


Si

[Antikx]

Cool. Thanks for the info.

If it is an X environment are people using their flavorite WM under OZ like icewm, fvwm, enlightenment, etc? What have people got working? Or are people sticking with GPE?

[grog]

Cool. Thanks for the info.

If it is an X environment are people using their flavorite WM under OZ like icewm, fvwm, enlightenment, etc? What have people got working? Or are people sticking with GPE?[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

AFAIK GPE uses matchbox. I don't know if you can change the wm.

[pgas]

gpe is integrated with matchbox (or the other way round),  but you can use another wm.

[nevarrie]

Cool. Thanks for the info.

If it is an X environment are people using their flavorite WM under OZ like icewm, fvwm, enlightenment, etc? What have people got working? Or are people sticking with GPE?
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I currently have e17 instead of gpe.  It is just X so any you shoudl be able to uses any WM that you want.  I know icewm and e17 are both in openembedded already but I am nto sure how well they run.  E17 still needs some work, but I plan on making it run for at least me after using it with pdaxrom(I like the openembedded build env better then pdaxroms).

Also since it is running X I can run programs on the Z or I can export the display of my programs to my X desktop when I have the Z in the doc.  But then again I am uses to having 6 computers with one X display.

[Antikx]

Thanks for the info you all.
This brings me to the question I've wanted to ask, but I don't want to start a flame war. I think many others may want to know the answer too.
If OZ can be setup to run like an X environment just like pdaXrom and is running a 2.6 kernel compared to pdaXrom's (and Cacko's) older 2.4 kernal... why don't pdaXrom users just use OZ + flavorite WM?

I'll try to answer my own question without having used OZ.
Because OZ is more bleading edge it hasn't had the time to get polished like pdaXrom.
I would think that would be the main reason.
Perhaps a second reason might be that it hasn't had the chance to build as big of a fan base yet.
I welcome your comments... and again... I'm not trying to start a flame war.

[pgas]

here is my opinion:
- pdaxrom was first to provide X
- pdaxrom provides easy to set up native and cross sdk (oz now provides a cross-sdk, installation of the required packages for native compilation far more complicated on oz).
This make it easier for the average user to compile the application of his choice.
- some popular apps are not readily available for oz/gpe (fbreader, opiereader, kopi, xchm..)
- pdaxrom was providing more of the basic stuff like working gui package manager.


Until this release I found that oz/gpe was not quite up to the comparison. This is not true with 3.5.4
What it provides over pdaxrom:
- rock solid very fast suspend resume
- a nice integrated environement
- virtual keyboard and rosetta with resizing of the application windows
- a nicer granularity of packages (for instance oz provides doc packages, while no docs are available for pdaxrom)
- more attention has been to paid to limit memory/space usage
- non root user by default and a nice visual sudo to run the application that requires more rights)
 
Some glitches:
- a number of sd cards are not supported by the 2.6 kernel
- you still need to set up the usb manually
- the package manager doesn't allow you to install on mounted partition
- light settings  still has some problems
- I find having to call a ipkg-link after ipkg manually not too much to my taste


Of course there are more than that, and some of my points are details.

Until this release I think that pdaxrom was much more readily usable than oz/gpe , now I think both have their pro and cons.

Oz/gpe has made a lot of progress since the previous release and, if the same amount of progress is made, the future release of oz/gpe could be a clear winner.

PS:I don't quite understand while people are so exciting about 2.6 kernel, I agree that it provides a number of benefits and it's very nice to have it, but IMHO it doesn't change the daily life of a zaurus user that much. (booting from sd and kexec  for dual boot might be very nice)

[Antikx]

Pgas: That sounds very comprehensive, and fair!
I think you've helped a lot of us understand the technical differences.
Thanks!

It bothers me some that the relatively small development community is split among so many ROM's. At the same time if I said everyone should drive a Chev, then we could have cheaper, better cars... lets just say it would never fly.
Everyone has different wants/needs and that's obvious in the different types of ROM's.
That's just the way it is right now, I guess.
Perhaps a bit of competition isn't a bad thing either, eh?

[adf]

I haven't seen video speed comparisons between oz/gpe and pdaxrom. nor any other real data comparing the kernels (though I think the OZ guys did some tests).  Since I have a 6000 and a 3100, I don't have access to a "release" OZ with a 2.6 kernel, so my interest, for now is purely speculative.

Also..since (on the 7xo/8xo Zs) oz has a kernel 2.6, presumably NOT compiled in gcc2.95, and has various up-to-date libraries, might there be some advantage to an OZgpe/debian setup on OZ?

[cal]

In addition to what pgas said, I think ROM choice is like choosing a linux distro on the desktop.  There is no clear option that is better then others.  In my openion, pdaXrom is a little more mature, from a users' standpoint.  Some things on OZ never work, and you don't know why, at least in my expirance.  With pdaXrom I always know that my next "ipkg -d sd install" is going to work.  In OZ I've had ipkg hose my system a couple of times, and just refuse to set up the program I was asking for a few more times.  That being said I'm trying OZ opie 3.5.4.1 on my C1000 right now, and not having any problems yet.

As far the 2.6 kernel, I think there actually is a significant speed up over 2.4.  I have no proof,  and it could be any one of a million other things, but this new images seems much faster then my last pdaxrom install.  Placebo effect perhaps?

I'm still not sure what I'm going to stick with.  OZ/GPE isn't quite ready for me, I'll try it again when 3.5.4.1 comes out officially.  OZ/Opie is pretty nice.  It does the PDA thing much better then pdaXrom and OZ/GPE do.   Its faster then anything else, but also seems a little limiting.  The thing I miss most about pdaXrom,however, is that it lets newbies like myself do cool things like run KDE, with relative ease.

I wish I could help you choose but I can't pick one myself.  I guess I need to just flip a coin and stick with one.  Of course I would forgive any rom's shortcomings if it came with a super simple way to sync with my Mac.

[DaddyGeek]

My views are pretty straight forward.

I have been playing with some different ROMS on my 550 for quite a while and am now playing with a 3000.

In general I found that OZ/Opie is a wonderful PDA wiht quite a few nice extras due to being a Linux OS rather than a uniprocess like the Palm Pilot was.

I have felt that OZ/QPE is nice but just feels "not quite there" as either a laptop or a PDA.

I have found that working with pdaXrom BETA1 on the 3000 feels a lot more like a lightweight laptop rather than a PDA.


These are my reasons for wanting to figure out a nice/easy dual-boot between OZ/Opie and pdaXrom.


In regards to the 2.4 vs 2.6 kernel I have not seen numbers either, but from a users perspective it "feels" faster on my desktop PC, my 500 and my 3000.


My biggest wish would be thet the pdaXrom could do more of the PDA stuff better (suspend/resume, synchronize with Desktop (windows, linux, mac) and such) without losing it's great desktop feel.


Yes, I think I sound just as tormented/confused as all the others who have tried both...



P.S>  I also tried OpenBSD and it is definitely a real OS and not a "lite" version, but it is not user-friendly, but OpenBSD never has been.
;-)

[adf]

I hope this isn't a hijacking,
GPE has its browser, and presumably firefox and dillo.
PdaXrom has Firefox (and mozilla), Konqueror (full from kde 3.5) dillo.
How is web browsing done in opie these days? Sure not the 5-year old embedded konqueror with compat-libs?  Compat-libs and opera or netfront?  Is there somehting nice and new and native?

[bam]

personally I would like to hear from some of the OZ and pdaXrom teams on this.

[koen]

I hope this isn't a hijacking,
GPE has its browser, and presumably firefox and dillo.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

GPE can use gpe-mini-browser, osb-browser, minimo, firefox and dillo2. It shouldn't be too hard to add epiphany and galeon to OE.

How is web browsing done in opie these days? Sure not the 5-year old embedded konqueror with compat-libs?  Compat-libs and opera or netfront?  Is there somehting nice and new and native?
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Still the 5 year old konq/e (without compatlibs), although the Opie people now have a recent konqueror working (with tabs, javascript, css, etc), but it requires a multithreaded qt/e which is ~700kB bigger as a unithreaded qt/e, so they are working on making qt/e smaller first (collie has on 14MB of flash).