edk2-sdm845 VS linux

Considering the community spends more time tweaking Xiaomi and Google mobile devices, I would love for them to make some flagship tablets on the market. Dex is good and all, quite handy considering the size (for a tablet w included keyboard vs a laptop), but that is about all I can say about samsung in my recent years experience. XDA has been overclocking the original sd865 to match or overpower sd888 powered phones, both performance-wise and thermally. There is even a uefi bootloader for some sd845 phones (mostly xiaomi). The same goes for ubuntu touch (google and xiaomi)

You may want to look into things like: https://projectsandcastle.org/status. Like the other commenter said, iOS is locked down. If you want a Linux tablet, look at the JingPad, or just any old Android tablet.

There is a chance you could go through _lots_ of work to get some _Android_ device to work on raw Linux with the edk2-sdm845 UEFI firmware (https://github.com/edk2-porting/edk2-sdm845) that chainloads from the Android bootloader (ABL).

This isn't true at all, Windows for Odin is an active part of the renegade project and a dev is working on compatability so we know exactly what is currently working and what isn't: https://renegade-project.org/#/en/windows/state-frame.html https://github.com/edk2-porting/edk2-sdm845

this is done by an Open source project, if Qualcomm were to give proper drivers then the performance would be much much better

figuring out how to get a kernel & normal environment booting seems to be one of the biggest challenges.

there is a TianoCore EDK2 porting effort underway that seems to have support on a good number of phones. who knows what works & doesn't once you are able to start running your own mainline kernel, but way cool to see over a dozen phones on this list!

https://github.com/edk2-porting/edk2-sdm845

This is possible due to this project

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

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...