i figured out the random hack which messed me up 12 years ago 2 days ago /c:f20 and the buda bug is fixed on my system - took me 3 days strait to find it... and the fuseblk hack took a while /c:2021 On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:39 AM Conor Williams wrote: > if it is a vfat filesystem it is ok.... > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:37 AM Conor Williams > wrote: > >> some of the fuseblk disc/k drivers/modules on peppermint which is a >> flavour of ubuntu >> are not even in the kernel space and there are mount.XYZ processes left >> open which are >> wide open to attack (with # fuser -p ) /c09 >> for those chips tings >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:24 AM hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> i think the main reason people are willing to fall for the android >>> platform is bec. there is no good long-term supply of updated phone >>> hardware with backwards-compatible interfaces. >>> >>> a lot of qualcomm and mediatek chipsets are being built, but instead >>> of documentation they only ship half-baked linux drivers, which are >>> often not even mainlined. >>> >>> those linux drivers are already hard to make work on actual linux >>> distributions, or even on android distributions. >>> >>> who wants to reverse-engineer the hardware over and over again based >>> on such linux drivers... >>> >>> On 9/20/21, Ethan Gardener wrote: >>> > tl;dr: forget inferno, port plan 9 to the pine phone. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 6:43 AM, Dave Eckhardt wrote: >>> >> > Anyone know if this project went anywhere? >>> >> > >>> >> > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~412/lectures/L05_Purge_Proposal.pdf >>> > >>> > I had to laugh at one of the slides. Inferno running natively on "x86 >>> > supercomputer"? I think implementing multicore support would be a first >>> > step, not to mention 64-bit! While it would be nice if those jobs were >>> done, >>> > they will take time and effort. Overall, if porting natively, I see >>> little >>> > sense in preferring Inferno to Plan 9, especially as Plan 9 already >>> supports >>> > 64-bit multicore. >>> > >>> >> Sadly, not. One issue is that modern Android releases don't >>> >> support 32-bit executables, and at the time that project was >>> >> attempted Inferno was somewhat 32-bit (I haven't looked since). >>> > >>> > Recalling the issues Hellaphone had and the time it took, I'm of the >>> opinion >>> > that getting Inferno to work on any given phone's Linux kernel is >>> hardly >>> > more worthwhile than porting it directly to the hardware. The kernels >>> have >>> > undocumented interfaces. >>> > >>> > A current thread on OSdev (operating system development) forums is >>> looking >>> > at phones. It's a little rambly, but it reports on some encouraging >>> things. >>> > Lots of "baseband processors" (the phone-network communication >>> subsystems) >>> > have documented interfaces. There are at least 2 phones available now >>> which >>> > are fully open for operating system development: the PinePhone and the >>> > Librem 5. (5 is the screen size.) Of the 2, the Pine Phone seems >>> better, not >>> > least because it can boot from the SD card; useful for testing. >>> > https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53251 >>> > >>> > There's also the option of building your own phone out of components. >>> The >>> > thread has some info. I'm guessing most here would prefer a PinePhone. >>> > >>> >> But I think I saw some recent-ish Inferno-on-Android activity here: >>> >> >>> >> https://github.com/bhgv/Inferno-OS-bhgv >>> > >>> > That's probably a good source of code. bhgv is a freelance programmer >>> who >>> > was very interested in Inferno and made several improvements including >>> > Truetype fonts. The last I heard was he tried to find paid work >>> involving >>> > Inferno but couldn't, so he didn't have time to work on it. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T39aec8f3f9d8503d-M080aad5bb3d8f05354a56fc5 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription