Nice, just a few weeks ago I finished my port of socz80 to DE0-nano (https://github.com/slp/socz80-de0_nano).
Apparently, the original socz80 is already supported on Fuzix, so it should run here too. More retro-fun!
Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be a counterpoint, but it is also one of the milder rants from Linux: No expletives; no colourful descriptions. Yes, it's critical, but is the criticism unwarranted? He is questioning why one of the most senior maintainers is directly contradicting one of the most central "edicts" from Linus on the kernel development: Don't break user-land. In the message, Linus directly quotes Alan as arguing that breaking us…
If you read the whole thread Linus was wrong. He was constantly confusing two different bugs (despite Alan pointing this out to him multiple times), and the fixes he was yelling at Alan for not applying would have caused other things to break.
Ooof. If I'm reading that thread correctly, Linus wanted to leave in a bug that would probably allow a local attacker (or maybe even a remote attacker) to execute arbitrary code in the kernel, just to avoid the risk of breaking userland code that did questionable thing that happened to work before by fixing it.
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#63I wonder how difficult, or even possible (no security architecture at the processor level) it would be to port NetBSD to the z80.
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#64I wonder how difficult, or even possible (no security architecture at the processor level) it would be to port NetBSD to the z80.
Maybe from an old BSD but not from NetBSD.
There's a fairly hard cut-off between the design of early OSs with no memory protection (e.g. legacy Mac OS, W95, Amiga, DOS, Locomotive basic), and operating systems which ration memory out to processes (NT, BeOS, Linux, BSD, Solaris). The later group depends on hardware features that the z80 didn't have.
Version 7 unix is in the first camp. Whereas BSD had paged virtual memory well before the IP became open. Also, I think NetBSD requires at least a 32-bit word size.
There was a unix-like in the z80 era called Coherent. On the wikipedia page it says, "There was no support for virtual memory or demand paging." I remember it being advertised in the magazines but never got to play with it, would be interested to hear stories.
[multiple edits, had fun thinking about this]
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the whole thread Linus was wrong. He was constantly confusing two different bugs (despite Alan pointing this out to him multiple times), and the fixes he was yelling at Alan for not applying would have caused other things to break.
Ooof. If I'm reading that thread correctly, Linus wanted to leave in a bug that would probably allow a local attacker (or maybe even a remote attacker) to execute arbitrary code in the kernel, just to avoid the risk of breaking userland code that did questionable thing that happened to work before by fixing it.
So reading this thread, I keep asking "could Linus have said what he needed to say in nicer terms and gotten better results?" I think so. In every Linus rant I encounter he goes on and on about the problem, then the person causing the problem, and typically attacks the developer. It's one thing to rule with an iron fist, it's another to target individuals and not the behavior.
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also be an exercise in open computing, hailing back to an era before legal attacks and ubiquitous surveillance. Being released in 1976, the Z80 architecture is well known and unencumbered by patents. It's also simple with fixed instruction timing, meaning it can be well tested, leaving few places for a back door to hide. The original hardware probably predates any surveillance programs (edit: and the silicon…
The original ARM was inspired by and designed on the 6502 (in the sense of they visited Western Digital and realized the designing a CPU was actually feasible for a small team, them emulated the design on a BBC Micro with 2nd processor) but IIRC Sophie Wilson stated they have no actual technology in common.
There's an interesting interview about this (amongst other things - it's basically Wilson talking about her career - interesting throughout) here: http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102746190
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooof. If I'm reading that thread correctly, Linus wanted to leave in a bug that would probably allow a local attacker (or maybe even a remote attacker) to execute arbitrary code in the kernel, just to avoid the risk of breaking userland code that did questionable thing that happened to work before by fixing it.
So reading this thread, I keep asking "could Linus have said what he needed to say in nicer terms and gotten better results?" I think so. In every Linus rant I encounter he goes on and on about the problem, then the person causing the problem, and typically attacks the developer. It's one thing to rule with an iron fist, it's another to target individuals and not the behavior.
> It's one thing to rule with an iron fist, it's another to target individuals and not the behavior.
Quite honestly, I don't see any of this in the thread in question.
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all, Alan Cox stated himself > I'm leaving the Linux world and Intel for a bit for family reasons. I'm aware that "family reasons" is usually management speak for "I think the boss is an asshole" but I'd like to assure everyone that while I frequently think Linus is an asshole (and therefore very good as kernel dictator) I am departing quite genuinely for family reasons and not because I've fallen…
This is a much more recent incident. The time he abruptly resigned as maintainer of the tty code was clearly a "fuck this, if you don't like the way I'm doing it, fix it yourself" resignation in direct response to some classic (if mild) Linus-in-your-face criticism.
Aren't they the same incident? His G+ posts talks about resigning from tty duties among other things -- but also states there was no beef between him or any other kernel maintainers.
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#69Wow a new OS for my Amstrad CPC. If only I knew how to transfer data unto it.
Floppy (you can use a PC floppy drive), or grab a board to add SD or IDE to your CPC
Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS
#70I half expected him to throw in something like "Just a hobby, won't be anything big and professional like Linux."
For those not familiar, this is a reference to Linus' quote when announcing commencement of work on Linux:
>just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/comp.os.minix/dl...
(Sorry for the Google Groups link...)