Audrey versus Litl: What a difference a decade can make.
I think the 3.com Audrey was the first computing device I remember that was meant to be strictly a home internet appliance device.... back when dial-up was the cornerstone of residential connectivity and VCRs were the dominate home entertainment format
( Read more... )
Comments 3
Most of the litl UI is written in Javascript, more specifically: "Mozilla's dialect of Javascript using the gjs binding to access GNOME and Clutter UI elements" to quote my colleague Lucas (http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2009/11/04/litl-webbook-some-technical-comments/)
This means that, while closed source, it is nonetheless very hackable if you can hack javascript. However our EULA prevents redistribution at this time, so you can hack on it privately but you can't redistribute the hacked (or unhacked) UI. We restricted the licensing on the UI layer because we don't want it turning up on random devices.
The system underneath however is a customized version of Ubuntu UME minus Gnome and some other things and as such is open source with the exception of proprietary software like codecs and Flash for eg.
Reply
Specifically:
If I want blow away the Litl software image completely...how difficult to re-image the device? And just as importantly how difficult is it to backup the Litl software image and restore it later after trying an alternative image? What really gave Audrey its long after-market lifespan as the ability to re-image via the compact flash slot.
-jef
-jef
Reply
Please take that as the definitive source.
Reply
Leave a comment