FUZIX VS linux

Alan Cox has a "Fuzix" repo, that puts together Uzix variants for the Z80.

https://github.com/EtchedPixels/FUZIX

Fuzix does appear to have CPU support for 6800 and is probably your best starting location. Although based on what I've seen of the ET-3400 you could be in for quite the uphill struggle.

Software complexity also helps to establish or maintain the predominance of large corporations on the market. In contrast, a simple software system can be reimplemented by a small team or even a single person, so there is more competition. This is not only demonstrated by Wirth's systems, but also by several 7th edition Unix clones of the 80's [1-4] as well as current ones [5] and also reimplementations of the classic MacOS [6].

Back in the 1980s, operating systems and compilers were often seen as the most complex pieces of software. Nowadays, web browsers include (and reimplement) large parts of an OS and compiler and are probably even more complex than a current OS such as Linux or a current compiler such as clang/LLVM. Only rich (or well funded) companies such as Google, Apple and the Mozilla foundation can afford to build a browser today that can be used to access current web pages.

So a central question is if we can turn back times and make software more simple again. Maybe this ship has already sailed - but it can't hurt to try. From experience with my students, it is extremely satisfying for them to build a complete system from scratch instead of mostly copying and pasting library calls or StackOverflow code snippets. Thus, I try to enable my students to experience this sense of achievement. They will probably never get the chance to do something similar in their later career in industry.

[1] One Man Unix for 68k - http://www.pix.net/mirrored/discordia.org.uk/~steve/omu.html

[2] Uzix for Z80 (link to the MSX port) - http://uzix.sourceforge.net

[3] Coherent Unix - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_(operating_system)

[4] Minix - https://www.minix3.org

[5] Alan Cox' Fuzix - https://github.com/EtchedPixels/FUZIX

[6] Ardi Executor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_(software)

How about FUZIX? It might be a better fit for vintage computers?

https://github.com/EtchedPixels/FUZIX

Also fuzix: https://github.com/EtchedPixels/FUZIX

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

So If we would only count code and not comments, it is only 9489 LoC Rust. Which would be about 0.03% and if we take all lines and not only LoC it would be around 0.05%

[0] https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/tokei

[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b401b621758e46812da...

AIUI fsync is built on futex_waitv which has been upstreamed. So this has to be more than that.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/a0eb2da92b715d0c97b...

git clone --no-checkout --depth 1 https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git $dir