Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8331 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 120 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800
GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100
Re: GPL Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100
Re: GPL Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 23:50 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:00 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:38 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:46 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:58 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:20 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 01:46 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 04:43 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 16:45 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:19 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:13 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:15 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:07 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:21 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:43 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:55 -0800
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 10:38 +0100
Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 11:12 +0100
Re: GPL anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 13:14 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:24 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-01-02 08:19 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 15:46 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-12-30 20:26 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-01-01 14:45 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:28 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 02:03 -0500
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:33 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 17:30 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-30 17:07 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:26 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:00 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:18 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 12:49 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:37 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:09 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:21 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 13:53 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:58 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:05 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:54 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 11:51 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:33 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:33 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:40 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:37 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:36 +0000
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:27 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-05 04:08 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 17:40 +0100
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 04:59 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-05 09:49 -0600
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 07:56 -0800
Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 14:00 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 10:33 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:30 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 15:28 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:49 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 08:32 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 22:26 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:22 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 09:11 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:29 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-26 00:29 +0400
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2011-12-27 14:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-12-27 16:29 -0600
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 21:10 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:46 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-31 16:41 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 20:50 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-01 18:14 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 21:33 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 01:57 -0500
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-02 04:45 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 07:36 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 15:13 +0100
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 13:15 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:19 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:22 -0800
Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800 |
| Subject | CarrierIQ Software and Forth |
| Message-ID | <dea6a39d-515c-403d-9426-dd261ab672cc@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the Forth community have anymore knowledge about this? Krishna http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-carrier-iq
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eac32b48-bcdd-414d-9f40-9573e09ce647@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8331 |
On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this? > > Krishna > > http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car... Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody recognize the variant? https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth;hb=HEAD KM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <445ec78f-f5b2-45c3-abe2-769f3997c848@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8332 |
On Dec 24, 3:14 am, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in > > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently > > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the > > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the > > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this? > > > Krishna > > >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car... > > Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an > example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody > recognize the variant? > > https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth... > > KM Truly fascinating that Forth is involved in this. Great find, Krishna!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15d14f43-c365-4078-b63b-fc591b63dc83@f15g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8335 |
On Dec 24, 3:52 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Dec 24, 3:14 am, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in > > > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently > > > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the > > > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the > > > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this? > > > > Krishna > > > >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car... > > > Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an > > example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody > > recognize the variant? > > >https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth... > > > KM > > Truly fascinating that Forth is involved in this. Great find, Krishna! And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which Forth system might be being used here. I only asked out of academic curiosity. Whatever personal misgivings I have about the existence of this "metrics logging" software certainly has no bearing on the use of Forth, or the particular Forth system which was used in this instance. I found that interesting. Particularly, since the topic of a "killer application" for Forth frequently arises -- this particular case may turn out to be an unfortunate application. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jd4lmj$b32$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8336 |
Krishna Myneni wrote: > And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth > plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which > Forth system might be being used here. Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth uses .fth. These are the three most popular Forth systems available that can easily made run on such a cellphone. The guess therefore is that it's VFX Forth. Stephen, is that one of your customers? ;-) > I only asked out of academic > curiosity. Whatever personal misgivings I have about the existence of > this "metrics logging" software certainly has no bearing on the use of > Forth, or the particular Forth system which was used in this instance. > I found that interesting. Particularly, since the topic of a "killer > application" for Forth frequently arises -- this particular case may > turn out to be an unfortunate application. Yes, people frequently ask "where is Forth in use, and why don't I know about it". Carrier IQ is a software, where you can answer both questions together ;-). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <78821811918436@frunobulax.edu> |
| In reply to | #8338 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth > Krishna Myneni wrote: >> And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth >> plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which >> Forth system might be being used here. > Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth uses .fth. > These are the three most popular Forth systems available that can easily > made run on such a cellphone. The guess therefore is that it's VFX > Forth. 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware 2. a provision to accept and run a user-supplied binary in a standard or open format (e.g. .exe or .dll) 3. open and documented APIs (e.g. C-runtime library, SDL graphics and of course phone-specific stuff)? A specific pointer would be appreciated. Given the Windows 8 hoopla I was expecting something to *become* possible, but searching for this kind of technical information is extremely tedious. (Especially when one isn't really interested in application smart-phone stuff). -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab17c07f-3541-4068-8738-764284b19f91@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8339 |
On Dec 24, 3:53 pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> writes Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth > > > Krishna Myneni wrote: > >> And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth > >> plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which > >> Forth system might be being used here. > > Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth uses .fth. > > These are the three most popular Forth systems available that can easily > > made run on such a cellphone. The guess therefore is that it's VFX > > Forth. > > 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with > > 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware > 2. a provision to accept and run a user-supplied binary in a standard or > open format (e.g. .exe or .dll) > 3. open and documented APIs (e.g. C-runtime library, SDL graphics and of course > phone-specific stuff)? > > A specific pointer would be appreciated. Given the Windows 8 hoopla > I was expecting something to *become* possible, but searching for this > kind of technical information is extremely tedious. (Especially when one > isn't really interested in application smart-phone stuff). > > -marcel check out the Motorola Atrix. It's a phone. Until you dock it into its little cradle. Then you get a HDMI video out, 3 usb ports, keyboard and mouse. It runs Linux. It's absolutely mind blowing. Gotta get me on. Though the HTC desire that I'm typing this on is also a good 'phone. Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64522d96-d40b-4e50-a668-714235d8fb7d@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8339 |
On Dec 24, 10:53 am, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> writes Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth >> Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth uses >> .fth. These are the three most popular Forth systems available that >> can easily made run on such a cellphone. ... > 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with > 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware Systems that do *not* require x86 hardware would seem to be part of the criteria for that list above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jd5tnt$6b5$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8339 |
Marcel Hendrix wrote: > 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with > > 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware No, but ARM hardware, and anybody who seriously wants to sell a Forth compiler in today's embedded system world already has an ARM target (VFX Forth has an ARM target, SwiftForth has one, and Gforth runs on anything that is a GCC target, anyways). > 2. a provision to accept and run a user-supplied binary in a standard > or > open format (e.g. .exe or .dll) Yes. Android is Linux. It took me a day to get Gforth running there, and most of that day was to improve the cross compilation support. Once it did cross compile correctly, it worked out of the box on my Android phone. No debugging necessary, it just worked. I was impressed. And for "the other cellphone": iOS is FreeBSD. I would not develop for iOS, due to Apples knee-jerk policy about free software and especially interpreters, which apparently they forget completely when they install spyware (Carrier IQ was part of iOS until version 5). > 3. open and documented APIs (e.g. C-runtime library, SDL graphics and > of course > phone-specific stuff)? Yes. Android is Linux, it is well documented, it has a libc (though not glibc), it has OpenGL ES (not SDL), and even though the "official" way to program it is Dalvik, Dalvik uses C libraries for all the grunt work. iOS's lowlevel parts are almost the same, though on top certainly there is Carbon and Objective-C. > A specific pointer would be appreciated. Given the Windows 8 hoopla > I was expecting something to *become* possible, but searching for this > kind of technical information is extremely tedious. (Especially when > one isn't really interested in application smart-phone stuff). Oh yes, it took me just a day to port Gforth, but it took me over a week to find all the lose ends of the strings to pull to know where to look. The Android NDK comes with examples which don't compile, and all the stuff that directs you towards Dalvik is misleading. You don't want to go through Dalvik if you port a Forth to Android. You want a bog- standard Linux libc program, you want to run it in a terminal session (androidterm/ssh/telnet), and thus you want the NDK, and to get a normal cross compiler out of the NDK is another step, which is not explained properly. Look into gforth/arch/arm/android/config.sh (from the CVS repository) for more informations, the first few lines (with comments) describe how to generate a "feels normal" GCC cross compiler suite. To make a more complete system than just a terminal Forth (i.e. one you can develop programs the user interfaces with), you probably have to take androidterm (it's open source, it's a rather small program), and extend it so that all the stuff you absolutely need Dalvik for are done there (like the interface to the keyboard, maybe some way to create Dalvik GUIs from the Forth system). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <760850.97.1324846709058.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prez15> |
| In reply to | #8344 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2011 5:19:56 PM UTC-8, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Marcel Hendrix wrote: > > 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with > > > > 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware > > No, but ARM hardware, and anybody who seriously wants to sell a Forth > compiler in today's embedded system world already has an ARM target (VFX > Forth has an ARM target, SwiftForth has one, and Gforth runs on anything > that is a GCC target, anyways). > > > 2. a provision to accept and run a user-supplied binary in a standard > > or > > open format (e.g. .exe or .dll) > > Yes. Android is Linux. It took me a day to get Gforth running there, > and most of that day was to improve the cross compilation support. Once > it did cross compile correctly, it worked out of the box on my Android > phone. No debugging necessary, it just worked. I was impressed. > > And for "the other cellphone": iOS is FreeBSD. I would not develop for > iOS, due to Apples knee-jerk policy about free software and especially > interpreters, which apparently they forget completely when they install > spyware (Carrier IQ was part of iOS until version 5). > > > 3. open and documented APIs (e.g. C-runtime library, SDL graphics and > > of course > > phone-specific stuff)? > > Yes. Android is Linux, it is well documented, it has a libc (though not > glibc), it has OpenGL ES (not SDL), and even though the "official" way > to program it is Dalvik, Dalvik uses C libraries for all the grunt work. > iOS's lowlevel parts are almost the same, though on top certainly there > is Carbon and Objective-C. > > > A specific pointer would be appreciated. Given the Windows 8 hoopla > > I was expecting something to *become* possible, but searching for this > > kind of technical information is extremely tedious. (Especially when > > one isn't really interested in application smart-phone stuff). > > Oh yes, it took me just a day to port Gforth, but it took me over a week > to find all the lose ends of the strings to pull to know where to look. > The Android NDK comes with examples which don't compile, and all the > stuff that directs you towards Dalvik is misleading. You don't want to > go through Dalvik if you port a Forth to Android. You want a bog- > standard Linux libc program, you want to run it in a terminal session > (androidterm/ssh/telnet), and thus you want the NDK, and to get a normal > cross compiler out of the NDK is another step, which is not explained > properly. Look into gforth/arch/arm/android/config.sh (from the CVS > repository) for more informations, the first few lines (with comments) > describe how to generate a "feels normal" GCC cross compiler suite. > > To make a more complete system than just a terminal Forth (i.e. one you > can develop programs the user interfaces with), you probably have to > take androidterm (it's open source, it's a rather small program), and > extend it so that all the stuff you absolutely need Dalvik for are done > there (like the interface to the keyboard, maybe some way to create > Dalvik GUIs from the Forth system). > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > http://bernd-paysan.de/ Bernd, did you check your research into the gforth cvs? If this information that CarrierIQ used Forth gets noticed, it would be opportune to be able to point people to something that could be used as a stepping stone. It might even give us some relevancy again in that world. I even ran into a case where this would have been useful this last week. I was at a factory in Shanghai and they ran into a slow eMMC issue. It would have been easy to demonstrate the problem in Forth, but that is no longer my job. The economics have changed to the ODM being responsible for delivering working units and they decide how best to accomplish that. I simply make sure that they do it right and give them clues on how to do it better. Forth would be a great clue, if I had something to point at. An Android apk would be even better, but one step at a time. DaR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jd89hp$dll$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8348 |
Dennis Ruffer wrote: > Bernd, did you check your research into the gforth cvs? Of course. > If this information that CarrierIQ used Forth gets noticed, it would > be opportune to be able to point people to something that could be > used as a stepping stone. It might even give us some relevancy again > in that world. Well, I wanted to pack up Gforth+Androidterm as Anroid App anyways these days, so this advertizing is good timing ;-). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8b2707a-6afb-4a20-95a0-033f2eab0c02@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8344 |
On Dec 24, 8:19 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > To make a more complete system than just a terminal Forth > (i.e. one you can develop programs the user interfaces with), > you probably have to take androidterm (it's open source, it's > a rather small program), and extend it so that all the stuff > you absolutely need Dalvik for are done there (like the interface > to the keyboard, maybe some way to create Dalvik GUIs from the > Forth system). From various androidterm info, including the Android shell discussion, it should be possible to build a Linux program that listens to and responds on stdio and a Dalvik front end that handles the GUI and talks to the back end over stdio? Or launches the back end and talks back and forth over named pipes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jd8ah9$ec9$2@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8349 |
BruceMcF wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:19 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: >> To make a more complete system than just a terminal Forth >> (i.e. one you can develop programs the user interfaces with), >> you probably have to take androidterm (it's open source, it's >> a rather small program), and extend it so that all the stuff >> you absolutely need Dalvik for are done there (like the interface >> to the keyboard, maybe some way to create Dalvik GUIs from the >> Forth system). > > From various androidterm info, including the Android shell discussion, > it should be possible to build a Linux program that listens to and > responds on stdio and a Dalvik front end that handles the GUI and > talks to the back end over stdio? Yes. > Or launches the back end and talks back and forth over named pipes? Whatever you like. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <16671310918436@frunobulax.edu> |
| In reply to | #8344 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth >Marcel Hendrix wrote: >> 'Easily made run?' Are there cellphones with >> 1. x86 32/64 bit hardware > No, but ARM hardware, and anybody who seriously wants to sell a Forth > compiler in today's embedded system world already has an ARM target (VFX > Forth has an ARM target, SwiftForth has one, and Gforth runs on anything > that is a GCC target, anyways). Well, my bet is on the Atom 14nm chips :-) With some luck I can port a full iForth to my then-phone. >> 2. a provision to accept and run a user-supplied binary in a standard >> or open format (e.g. .exe or .dll) > Yes. Android is Linux. It took me a day to get Gforth running there, > and most of that day was to improve the cross compilation support. Once > it did cross compile correctly, it worked out of the box on my Android > phone. No debugging necessary, it just worked. I was impressed. OK, I hadn't expected that. So all executables that work on the underlying Linux can be executed on the phone, without some kind of 'security' layer kicking in? > And for "the other cellphone": iOS is FreeBSD. I would not develop for > iOS, due to Apples knee-jerk policy about free software and especially > interpreters, which apparently they forget completely when they install > spyware (Carrier IQ was part of iOS until version 5). Again, if Apple switches to Atom, I won't mind a short excursion to freeBSD. >> 3. open and documented APIs (e.g. C-runtime library, SDL graphics and >> of course phone-specific stuff)? > Yes. Android is Linux, it is well documented, it has a libc (though not > glibc), it has OpenGL ES (not SDL), and even though the "official" way > to program it is Dalvik, Dalvik uses C libraries for all the grunt work. > iOS's lowlevel parts are almost the same, though on top certainly there > is Carbon and Objective-C. Not bad. Maybe after another year of waiting SDL does work on Android... [ good stuff ] -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jd8aes$ec9$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8350 |
Marcel Hendrix wrote: > Well, my bet is on the Atom 14nm chips :-) With some luck I can port a > full iForth to my then-phone. I won't take any bets on Atom chips in a phone. > OK, I hadn't expected that. So all executables that work on the > underlying Linux can be executed on the phone, without some kind of > 'security' layer kicking in? The security layers don't prevent androidterm to start executables within its own directory tree. You can even install busybox there on a non-rooted device, though rooting the device is a lot easier (and installs busybox, too). > Not bad. Maybe after another year of waiting SDL does work on > Android... libsdl.org says they have an official SDL 1.3 port for Android ready now. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e23aba7d-a150-4e40-8969-a3c0902448c7@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8352 |
On Dec 25, 5:09 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > Marcel Hendrix wrote: > > Well, my bet is on the Atom 14nm chips :-) With some luck I can port a > > full iForth to my then-phone. > > I won't take any bets on Atom chips in a phone. > > > OK, I hadn't expected that. So all executables that work on the > > underlying Linux can be executed on the phone, without some kind of > > 'security' layer kicking in? > > The security layers don't prevent androidterm to start executables > within its own directory tree. You can even install busybox there on a > non-rooted device, though rooting the device is a lot easier (and > installs busybox, too). > > > Not bad. Maybe after another year of waiting SDL does work on > > Android... > > libsdl.org says they have an official SDL 1.3 port for Android ready > now. > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/ Maybe the time is right to take the two-headed dragon out for a spin on an Android phone. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <988b5b19-8df5-4ebd-9af8-b1ef62d164c5@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8344 |
On Dec 24, 8:19 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > And for "the other cellphone": iOS is FreeBSD. I would not > develop for iOS, due to Apples knee-jerk policy about free > software and especially interpreters, which apparently they > forget completely when they install spyware (Carrier IQ was > part of iOS until version 5). As someone who recently has suffered through reading their 44-page developer license agreement, I see plenty in there that causes me to roll my eyes. But to be fair, Apple doesn't have a problem with all free software-- they have a problem with free software with viral licenses that would cause them to have to release source for their proprietary code. That's not unreasonable and they have no problem with the various other licenses (such as MIT and BSD) that aren't viral. And they don't have a problem with interpreters-- as long as the interpreter only accesses code that is packaged with the application. The interpreted code can't be downloaded. The primary thing Apple appears to fear is accepting an application to the App Store that does X, but at run-time completely changes behavior and does Y. Or possibly, accepting an application that could be subverted to download and execute arbitrary code. Apple *was* unnecessarily grandiose and had said that applications couldn't use interpreters (other than their own Javascript implementation in WebKit). But that ended shortly after it was pointed out that a best-selling game for iOS that Steve Jobs held up at a keynote address was written in Lua. And not long after that, other developers of best-selling apps who were using a variety of other interpreted languages asked for clarification. It was kind of hard for Apple to keep their no-interpreter-besides-ours stance after apps they showcased were found to be written in interpreted languages. If the app in question used a Forth without a viral license and didn't execute code that wasn't already bound to the application, then Apple wouldn't have any problem with it. They probably would have a problem with someone releasing a raw interpreter (for any language) as an app, especially if it could be used as a backdoor to subvert security on the phone. That's not a defense of Apple-- I think they could be (and should be) far more open. And I think it's silly that in order to do any development for your own iOS phone or tablet you essentially have to pay them $99/year. That's just stupid. Regardless, anyone who thinks that Forth development for mobile devices is a good idea probably hasn't written a non-trivial app for a mobile device. What would make more sense is to develop a variant of Forth that embraced the fundamental qualities of mobile platforms such as being dynamic, event-based, highly asynchronous in their structure. And you want to be able to access native libraries (especially the UI libraries) in some sensible way. I can easily see an augmented Forth for such platforms working well for developers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8667acd-fb54-45ee-9fc6-e98902de5e8d@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8366 |
On Dec 27, 12:43 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regardless, anyone who thinks that Forth development for mobile > devices is a good idea probably hasn't written a non-trivial app for a > mobile device. What would make more sense is to develop a variant of > Forth that embraced the fundamental qualities of mobile platforms such > as being dynamic, event-based, highly asynchronous in their > structure. Its not entirely clear why developing in Forth with the specified set of extensions at hand is not "Forth development for mobile devices".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8fad777-947d-43a8-8d4f-c12d9ec76b57@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8367 |
On Dec 27, 12:56 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > Its not entirely clear why developing in Forth with the > specified set of extensions at hand is not "Forth > development for mobile devices". I believe that at some point after extending Forth with extensions and application-specific words, you are no longer programming in Forth. And in this particular case, the set of extensions and application- specific words one would need to add to make it a *competitive* language for mobile app development would make the resulting language different from Forth in a number of important ways. In order for Forth to be competitive as a language in the mobile space, I presume it would have a number of features that "raw" Forth does not. These include: 1. An object system that respected the platform's object model. 2. Direct support for creating asynchronous, event-driven apps. 3. Garbage collection (primarily to support non-sequential, asynchronous flows). 4. Dynamic language features like typed values and generic data structures. The end result of what I consider a Forth-based competitive language for mobile development would look and work a lot less like traditional Forth and would be closer to Postscript or Factor. You are certainly free to call such a language Forth if you like, but I'd consider that next to meaningless. The above is obviously my opinion on what would make a Forth-based language competitive in the mobile space. Those who either haven't developed in that space and/or don't know the languages often used in that space (Objective C, Java, Javascript, Lua) are free to imagine that all one needs is a "raw" Forth, some FFI, and a set of instructions to the developer that reads "go have fun." Those same people are also free to wonder why such a language didn't take the industry by storm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b95a0086-4dee-4d24-b59b-315bd8920690@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8370 |
On Dec 27, 1:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 12:56 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > > > Its not entirely clear why developing in Forth with the > > specified set of extensions at hand is not "Forth > > development for mobile devices". > > I believe that at some point after extending Forth with extensions and > application-specific words, you are no longer programming in Forth. > And in this particular case, the set of extensions and application- > specific words one would need to add to make it a *competitive* > language for mobile app development would make the resulting language > different from Forth in a number of important ways. > > In order for Forth to be competitive as a language in the mobile > space, I presume it would have a number of features that "raw" Forth > does not. These include: > > 1. An object system that respected the platform's object model. > 2. Direct support for creating asynchronous, event-driven apps. > 3. Garbage collection (primarily to support non-sequential, > asynchronous flows). > 4. Dynamic language features like typed values and generic data > structures. > > The end result of what I consider a Forth-based competitive language > for mobile development would look and work a lot less like traditional > Forth and would be closer to Postscript or Factor. You are certainly > free to call such a language Forth if you like, but I'd consider that > next to meaningless. > > The above is obviously my opinion on what would make a Forth-based > language competitive in the mobile space. Those who either haven't > developed in that space and/or don't know the languages often used in > that space (Objective C, Java, Javascript, Lua) are free to imagine > that all one needs is a "raw" Forth, some FFI, and a set of > instructions to the developer that reads "go have fun." Those same > people are also free to wonder why such a language didn't take the > industry by storm. Why, yes. That's exactly what I imagine is needed to develop decent Forth applications on that platform. And, personally, I wouldn't really care [choice Pelc acronym here] whether or not Forth took the industry by storm. Also, you seem to imply that Forth isn't well suited for use in highly asynchronous, event-driven environments. I guess that would rule out writing Windows and X-Windows apps in Forth... wait, that's been done already (e.g., see Bernd's GUI development interface). Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web