if it is a vfat filesystem it is ok.... On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:37 AM Conor Williams <conor.willi...@gmail.com> 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 <PID>) /c09 > for those chips tings > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:24 AM hiro <23h...@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 <eeke...@fastmail.fm> 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-M755e8f17a70fbc6e1c22d20f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
