Database Info

programming on g tab

First of all, when I searched for doing programming on an android device, I got a kazillion results on programming an android app. I don't want that. Currently, what are the languages that I can write and compile on an android device? Is java one of these?

I've always wondered why noone has posted a static gcc build for android. gcc g++ gcj, they all should cross compile. You might have to enable swap to use them though.

Android basically runs Java. That's the simple answer.
You might find some interesting reading on Eclipse with the google plugins.
If WYSIWYG/RAD environments are more to your liking, check out the "google app inventor."

goodintentions said:
First of all, when I searched for doing programming on an android device, I got a kazillion results on programming an android app. I don't want that. Currently, what are the languages that I can write and compile on an android device? Is java one of these?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=613

Um, guys, I said I don't care about building apps. I wanted to know if I could write and compile java on an android tablet.

Not quite java...
First, Android doesn't *quite* run Java. It runs Dalvik. That's a tweaked version of Java to help google not use the lawsuit with Sun/Oracle. There's a preprocessor you have to run over he Java bytecodes to get Dalvik code. This is why you can't simply port (or rather, build, given that there's a Linux under there) gcj and use it as is - you need the jvm->Dalvik translator.
The good news is - that runs on Android. There's a Clojure (a JVM/.net language) port for android that uses that translator to run code. While it's not up to building production code, it's fine for writing/testing code on android. I assume the JRuby port also uses it.
If all you're interested in is programming on a g tab, there's lots of options, most notably Google SL4A package (python, ruby, beanshell, sh - I think). But you can find Scheme, BrainF*ck, Pascal, Basic, etc. No Java, but I found at least three languages that run on the Dalvik VM (Clojure, JRuby, and Frink) that let you access some or all of the Android APIs. If you want to explore the Android APIs, one of these will probably work.
Finally, there's IDEDroid. That runs locally, but looks like it exports the compile and execution to their web server. It has support for lots (and lots and lots) of languages - including Java. If you just want edit/run small programs to play with the language, this might be just the ticket. I think I'm going to install it so I can play with haskell....

I wonder. Why in the world hasn't anyone developed a way to write and compile java code on android?

GNU has gcj, I'm fairly certain the same tools you use to compile a kernel would work to make an ARM/Android version.

muqali said:
GNU has gcj, I'm fairly certain the same tools you use to compile a kernel would work to make an ARM/Android version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you please clarify? I guess I'm seeing the potential to incorporate the gtab into my work at the lab. Let just say we're a bunch of engineers trying to act like IT programmers. Why hire an honest to god programmer when you could have your engineers lose sleep over trying to program the machines?
So, please could you stop giving me single sentence answers? If I get the gtab will I be able to use it to write, debug, compile, etc. java codes? We've been doing our own things with java and it's too late to switch to something else. I'm sure it's possible, I'm just having trouble finding the answer in search as it seems noone has ever brought this up before. Ever.
Would the following be what I'm looking for?
http://www.getjar.com/mobile/38541/java-programming-for-android-os-all/

So, I take it that it is not possible to write, debug, and compile java code on an android tablet?

goodintentions said:
So, I take it that it is not possible to write, debug, and compile java code on an android tablet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did mis-understand you initial post on my first reply.
Now that I understand you question, I'm a bit baffled as to 'Why?'
A tablet just doesn't seem to be a very conducive platform to entering and compiling code.
I don't know about any development tools meant to run on android directly. But there are people running ubuntu on their tablets.

Zaphod-Beeblebrox said:
I did mis-understand you initial post on my first reply.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't understand how you could have misunderstood my original post. Here it is.
I said, and I quote:
First of all, when I searched for doing programming on an android device, I got a kazillion results on programming an android app. I don't want that. Currently, what are the languages that I can write and compile on an android device? Is java one of these?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't how else I can make it clearer. I'm an engineer, not an idiot. A simple google search turned up millions of links to how to manage android projects on a pc. Why in the world would I be asking this? And I even said I google searched and it turned up nothing.
Now that I understand you question, I'm a bit baffled as to 'Why?'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the sake of convienience... and to baffle my colleagues.
I don't know about any development tools meant to run on android directly. But there are people running ubuntu on their tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The whole point of having a tablet is its light weight and the touch screen. I'd like to be able to take it to meetings, take notes with a stylus, show colleagues basic autocad drawings, write and debug java codes for some of our projects, etc. This is not to say I want to use it as my main device. I will still be using either my laptop or my desktop for my projects, but having something like the viewsonic gtab to carry around and do these things seem cool to me.
I'm just baffled why there hasn't been an app development to run/compile java code on the android OS.

Here is a Online IDE that works pretty good (not for java): http://www.coderun.com/ide/
Or
This one will let you compile and run just about anything including java: http://ideone.com/

Sure glad I tried to help.
Prick.

Zaphod-Beeblebrox said:
Sure glad I tried to help.
Prick.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I'm a prick. I fully admit this. This attitude came from years of experience with 1337s online. When I first started getting into linux, and this was back in the days when there was no visual interface for installation and you had to type in a dozen commands for every step of the way while it asks you for the specific models of your peripherals, I searched for several days on solutions pertaining to a problem I ran into. After being fairly confident that there was no answer to it, I signed into a linux forum and asked about it. I got a couple one-liner answers that made no sense, a couple answers that assumed I was an idiot so they answered the wrong thing, and half a dozen "you're an idiot, go away" answers.
My first rule of thumb is if you could interpret a person's question at least 2 ways, then without further info assume the interpretation that doesn't include assuming the other person is an idiot. And this is for an obscure question. My original post clearly stated I was talking about debuging and compiling java on the android tablet itself. I specifically worded my question like that because I knew people were going to assume I was talking about the thing you assumed.
This 1337 attitude online is getting old.

the3dman said:
Here is a Online IDE that works pretty good (not for java): http://www.coderun.com/ide/
Or
This one will let you compile and run just about anything including java: http://ideone.com/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I guess this is what I will have to go with for now. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this before. Surely, if you could run it on a linux distro such as ubuntu, then I'm sure it's possible to do the same thing on a different OS that runs on the same processor. Why in the world hasn't anyone come up with this yet?

goodintentions said:
Why in the world hasn't anyone come up with this yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like its up to you to save the day!

adampdx said:
Sounds like its up to you to save the day!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm a materials/structural engineer who's an amateur programmer. I practically live in my lab. Sure, the other engineers often look at my programming work with oohs and aahs, but I assure you they look like something put together by an idiot if you're a software engineer. Something like this is several miles above my head. Most of my work look like spaghetti code anyway.

goodintentions said:
I'm just baffled why there hasn't been an app development to run/compile java code on the android OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
B/c any real programmer would probably blow a hole in his head trying to write/debug code on a tablet.

HKChad said:
B/c any real programmer would probably blow a hole in his head trying to write/debug code on a tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The same could be said about autocad, and yet there is an autocad app for it, given that the capabilities are limited.

Hacking possibilities

So after playing with my Surface for 5 days now, it is obvious there is a lot of capability in the back end through the Desktop. II have networked printers, and drives at both home and office going, streaming content etc. It is very capable for what it is, way beyond any other Ipad and Android tablet out there. So it seems to me it is just a matter of time before some XDAer figures out a way to unleash it and possibly load other programs (non-RT) programs some way. We know the official MS word is no, but it seems to me it is a fully capable Win8 machine that just has some goierners on it and limited processing power, just waiting to be cracked.
Am I just dreaming?

I would love to see this happen. The one thing holding me back from purchasing one. I'd love a Windows 8 Pro version tablet at the Surface RT pricing but wouldn't we all...

I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app

liu2002 said:
I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think it's necessarily about the Tegra being "as good" as an x86 - the issue is that you'd need an emulator, or the source for the x86 app which you'd then need to re-compile for ARM. I believe MS made a developer toolkit available that allows simpler conversion from x86 to ARM but it's still up to the app vendors to do it.

In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Skitals said:
In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you say that?

Because its not allowed, only metro style apps published through the app store are allowed. Even if you compile compatible desktop software, the OS won't run it. Its a closed sandbox.
At best we can hope for a "homebrew" community to compile open source software, and find some hacks to get it running.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Hello,
I’m a happy owner of the Surface RT and I just wanted to add my 2c.
I think that Metro UI is great for tablet, but lacks apps !
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform ! I think the main goal and the first “Homebrew” must be recompilation of Mono for ARM. As this will allow us develop a lot of programs, quickly and using “good” tools (Visual )
I just started to study WinRT and I’m already hitting a lot of blocks (For instance, I cannot find a way to open Shared Socket ! So if any other app listen on 1900 port, I lose my SSDP discovery... )
But I think recompilation of Mono is definitely a way to go ! I think i’ll try it this week-end, if I have some time, but It’s sure I will not be able install on my surface  As for now it seems to be impossible to enter Testing Mode on it.
Jurion

jurion said:
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T

Skitals said:
In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything doesn't have to come through the MS store, you can install applications that you build in Visual Studio 2012 for Windows Store, create an appx package and choose not to publish it in Windows Store. VS2012 then creates an appx package as well as a PowerShell script that you can run on Surface, accept security warning, get the developer's license on the device (it's free) and that's it!

It is fairly obvious why MS does not allow installation of "Desktop" apps on ARM tablets. Otherwise dev's would get lazy and just recompile desktop apps for ARM. The experience on a touch tablet would not be great on (unmodified) Desktop apps, hence Microsoft set this constraint on Windows RT in order to push dev's towards making a proper touch friendly app. The result is of course the lack of apps initially, but in the long run the benefits will be a greater experience as the apps would be optimized for touch.
Sure there are obvious downsides to this strategy, but the decision itself makes a lot of sense from a useability standpoint. You already read the complaints in reviews about "Office" not being Metro-style and unfriendly to touch. However this is naturally a decision due to time constraints, because MS would have also preferred to not include a desktop on RT. Office is the selling point now, to gravitate people towards RT and when there is enough demand, the touch friendly (Metro) apps will flow in eventually

Backflipping said:
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, sorry my bad, didn't look enougth to find .Net assemblies.
As for open it for MS, may be, maaaay be it's the same scheme which they followed with Windows Phone 7.
No native developpment for 7.0 -- 7.8
But they open it for 8.0
May be they just want to force people developp Metro app to populate the store first.

So where's the best place to get one?
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.

Can't_Live_Without_My_Evo said:
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is made for it. It has the full desktop, and the full desktop Office suite. Its a big tease. The whole "do more" campaign advertises you can "click in" and have full laptop productivity with touchpad and mouse/keyboard. Except the only software to take advantage of it is desktop IE and Office.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

App requests?

I know this is a potentially dangerous post, but I'm looking for suggestions for things to port. I make no promises that I'll be willing/able to port any suggested software.
Some ground rules before you hit 'reply'
1) Don't ask for Chrome. I won't port it. Period.
2) The source code must be available and not have any _obvious_ specific ties to non-open source code. Eg: some proprietary or closed source library which it depends on.
3) Code must be in C or C++ (I can deal with porting some assembly if needed)
4) Project must be of a _reasonable_ size for 1 person. Honestly, I do this on my own and in my spare time. Some apps can be just massively overwhelming to port. That being sad, sometimes the big ones are also easy.... so use your own judgement here.
5) Tell me why you want it ported. Whats your "use case".
6) Drivers aren't out of the question, but they generally take significantly more work.
Feel free to +1 others suggestions.
Ok.. <puts on protective gear>.. fire away!
Cheers!

Thanks for all your awesome work.
While this isn't an app, I think that the kexec kernel-mode driver idea that was tossed around earlier would be waay more useful than an individual app. Every time it was brought up somebody said "Oh, that won't be much work." And then nobody did anything :-/
So, I'm hugely grateful for the time you put in here, but I think I'd be even huger-ly grateful-er if you opened the door to other OSs.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app

What would be good is:
http://ekiga.org/download-ekiga-binaries-or-source-code
But I'm pretty sure it uses some libraries not avail

I wish XNA could run on Windows RT. It'd be funny to see Terraria and Magicka on Windows RT...
Firefox would be nice, but without a Thumb-2 JITter, it's not worth it.

Would be nice to have InSSIDer. I use it a lot on my laptop, rather leave it at home.
https://github.com/metageek-llc/inSSIDer-2

Myriachan said:
I wish XNA could run on Windows RT. It'd be funny to see Terraria and Magicka on Windows RT...
Firefox would be nice, but without a Thumb-2 JITter, it's not worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say to take a look at monogame. It can actually build microsoft store apps including ARM support, so coercing it into functioning on the windows desktop may be possible. Otherwise it might end up being a rule 4 :/
There are hacks out there to run terraria on MonoGame instead of XNA, most of them pretty complete but sometimes have the odd graphical glitch. A full source port to MonoGame would be far more reliable, and actually very simple, but sadly its closed source (although not obfuscated).
One of the supposedly more reliable ones: http://www.terrariaonline.com/threads/wip-monogame-terraria-terraria-for-linux.72997/
Isn't rule one covered by rule four?

SixSixSevenSeven said:
Isn't rule one covered by rule four?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
People can have bad judgement.. so I'm making an explicit point about Chrome.

Personally i Was really disappointed by the lack of a transmission remote app when i discovered métro interface!
Plus there are many utorrent app...
SO, i think TR Gui source code is available, i think there is many people interested, And i think it will not be too difficult to develop, that can be a wonderfull idea (especially for me ) to make this one

Just found one. TCPMP, this player worked great during the PocketPC/Windows Mobile era. It moved from open source to a commercial different version which is closed source but I believe the link below has the source.
http://www.hpcfactor.com/downloads/tcpmp/
This would bring about a player that supports MKV playback.

lambstone said:
Just found one. TCPMP, this player worked great during the PocketPC/Windows Mobile era. It moved from open source to a commercial different version which is closed source but I believe the link below has the source.
http://www.hpcfactor.com/downloads/tcpmp/
This would bring about a player that supports MKV playback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no source code downloadable from that site. All the links are non-existent. Please post the source code if you have it.
Cheers!

bfosterjr said:
There is no source code downloadable from that site. All the links are non-existent. Please post the source code if you have it.
Cheers!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does this help http://code.google.com/p/tcpmp-revive/source/browse/#svn/trunk

mr djé said:
Personally i Was really disappointed by the lack of a transmission remote app when i discovered métro interface!
Plus there are many utorrent app...
SO, i think TR Gui source code is available, i think there is many people interested, And i think it will not be too difficult to develop, that can be a wonderfull idea (especially for me ) to make this one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2101891

mr djé said:
Personally i Was really disappointed by the lack of a transmission remote app when i discovered métro interface!
Plus there are many utorrent app...
SO, i think TR Gui source code is available, i think there is many people interested, And i think it will not be too difficult to develop, that can be a wonderfull idea (especially for me ) to make this one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the problem with the current torrent apps are you either have to pay to get the ability to download files in the background, or the app doesn't support it. I'd like to see a free torrent client that allows background downloading, even if it means speed has to be throttled a bit.
To the OP what is your favorite browser? If it is not Chrome(or Chromium), do you think it is possible to port that browser? At this point I'll even take Safari as I am starting to hate all the crashes that occur for me in IE.

bigsnack said:
I think the problem with the current torrent apps are you either have to pay to get the ability to download files in the background, or the app doesn't support it. I'd like to see a free torrent client that allows background downloading, even if it means speed has to be throttled a bit.
To the OP what is your favorite browser? If it is not Chrome(or Chromium), do you think it is possible to port that browser? At this point I'll even take Safari as I am starting to hate all the crashes that occur for me in IE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Safari is not open source so cannot be ported.
Chrome is a rule 4 - or in other words is too much effort for 1 man to do in a reasonable time frame.
Firefox is also a rule 4, plus its a ***** to get it to compile properly under microsoft tools apparently, plus its javascript engine is raw ARMv7 JIT whereas windows RT bugs with that and would require a THUMB2 JIT. Chrome also would have javascript issues, although in chrome you can have an interpreted javascript engine I think which would just be hideously slow in comparison.
Opera - Closed source.
The list goes on unfortunately. Browsers are complex creatures. Most will come under rule 4 though.

bigsnack said:
I think the problem with the current torrent apps are you either have to pay to get the ability to download files in the background, or the app doesn't support it. I'd like to see a free torrent client that allows background downloading, even if it means speed has to be throttled a bit.
To the OP what is your favorite browser? If it is not Chrome(or Chromium), do you think it is possible to port that browser? At this point I'll even take Safari as I am starting to hate all the crashes that occur for me in IE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What the hell are you doing to get all these crashes? I have yet to have IE crash on 8 or 8.1 on RT in desktop or metro.

My only suggestion would be a gui SFTP client. This is probably the one utility I am currently missing on my Surface RT (I use ssh to remote into Linux systems both for work and personal use, point #5). To clarify, I do use the psftp client in the putty suit, and that works well enough, just takes a bit more time and effort than something like winscp. I can continue to use this if an gui alternative is not feasible.
I recall someone requesting winscp at some point in the past, so I searched around this forum and I did find a couple of people that took a stab at it, but with no results, and I haven't found a clear explanation on what the hang up was. Looking at the readme winscp appears to be written in c++ at least (point #3):
To build WinSCP you need:
- Embarcadero C++ Builder XE2 Professional.
- Copy MFC source code from Borland C++ Builder 6 Professional and
build its Unicode version (see readme_mfc.txt).
- nasm from http://www.nasm.us/
- To build 64-bit version of drag&drop shell extension, you need
Windows Platform SDK:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bb980924
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am unsure if the aforementioned Windows Platform SDK is available for Windows RT, or if it is even needed since Windows RT is not 64-bit.
Is nasm the problem? It looks to be an x86/x64 assembler... which of course wouldn't work on ARM... unless I just don't get what an assembler is...
Not being much of a coder I also don't know if one can import a Borland C++ project into Visual Studio, so maybe that is also a problem too.
So I guess I'm not sure on a lot of the points on the ground rules list...

domboy said:
My only suggestion would be a gui SFTP client. This is probably the one utility I am currently missing on my Surface RT (I use ssh to remote into Linux systems both for work and personal use, point #5). To clarify, I do use the psftp client in the putty suit, and that works well enough, just takes a bit more time and effort than something like winscp. I can continue to use this if an gui alternative is not feasible.
I recall someone requesting winscp at some point in the past, so I searched around this forum and I did find a couple of people that took a stab at it, but with no results, and I haven't found a clear explanation on what the hang up was. Looking at the readme winscp appears to be written in c++ at least (point #3):
I am unsure if the aforementioned Windows Platform SDK is available for Windows RT, or if it is even needed since Windows RT is not 64-bit.
Is nasm the problem? It looks to be an x86/x64 assembler... which of course wouldn't work on ARM... unless I just don't get what an assembler is...
Not being much of a coder I also don't know if one can import a Borland C++ project into Visual Studio, so maybe that is also a problem too.
So I guess I'm not sure on a lot of the points on the ground rules list...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Borland C++ is an alternative set of 3rd part C++ tools. Would take a bit of work to get a borland project to compile it under microsoft tools.
Nasm is an x86/x64 assembler yes. Assembly language is pretty much the lowest level of programming possible before writing in raw hex or binary. It is *HIGHLY* CPU dependent. Specifically the set of commands available in assembly is the plain text form of the exact instruction set the CPU has available which for x86 is different from ARM. The fact that nasm is required means that the project will have assembly in it, therefore an RT port will not be undertaken (one of the rules in the OP).
Sorry man, its proprietary tools and parts of it are unportable anyway. Doesnt mean another SFTP client can't be ported, just this one.

Here's my wishlist. I've poked at some of them, but I don't really have time to finish any of them.
WinPCap - Iirc, the biggest issue was that it was written targeting an older version of NDIS. The usecase would be to provide network support for BOCHS.
QEmu - There's a build of QEmu that builds on MSVC called WinQEmu, but it's dynarec recompiles to x86 only. I believe the official QEmu repo doesn't support MSVC, and I don't know if it can recompile to THUMB-2.
A good IRC client - X-Chat and mIRC run poorly under the emulator, and the few .net clients I've tried are meh. X-Chat has too many GCC-specific requirements, and mIRC isn't open source, I just want a good IRC client.
An X Server - I've been unable to find an X server that builds with MSVC, or anything short of Cygwin for that matter, but I'd love to have one.

Calibre is a good eBook manager I think this is the correct source code https://code.launchpad.net/calibre
I'm not good with this source code stuff so if its to much you dont need to make a port but if you can it would be appreciated thanks
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4

cx1 said:
What the hell are you doing to get all these crashes? I have yet to have IE crash on 8 or 8.1 on RT in desktop or metro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Browsing news sites and/or using Spotify.

Bypassing PatchGuard...?

So I know pretty much how my jailbreak is going to work from end to end, except with regard to PatchGuard. I don't need to burn my "Holy Grail" exploit in order to release a jailbreak, but it means that I have to deal with PatchGuard.
In Windows 8.1, Microsoft modified the kernel and ci.dll so that PatchGuard protects the signing enforcement mode variables. This means that if you modify the variables that were modified by 8.0's jailbreak, some random time in the next hour from that point, your system will bugcheck (bluescreen) because PatchGuard detected something tampering with the kernel. It is very obvious that the addition of these variables to PatchGuard's protected list was a deliberate attack against the RT jailbreak, because there is little other reason to care about enforcing these variables' integrity after startup.
I need to get around PatchGuard somehow. PatchGuard itself is designed to be an obfuscated mess, deliberately difficult to modify in a stable manner. It does a lot of nasty tricks, things that you would typically find in copy protection systems. Obviously, disabling it would be nice, but quite difficult. So is stopping it from bugchecking.
I can load kernel drivers, so I know of a way in which I can hook parts of the system that would not anger PatchGuard such that arbitrary unsigned DLLs and drivers could be loaded without hassle. For things like the lockdown in WinDbg, VBScript and PowerShell, I can hook NtQuerySystemInformation in the user-mode ntdll.dll and intercept the request to check the lockdown setting. Even though the system lockdown state would still be active, as long as user mode programs don't know about it, it won't be enforced. (The kernel doesn't care at all.)
However, this leaves one thing to be desired: executing ARM code. I already know how we can patch the kernel so that ARM code can execute without the CPU being switched back to Thumb2 all the time. However, patching the kernel definitely will get PatchGuard's attention, so there's no way to pull that off without defeating PatchGuard.
The optimal solution is definitely to defeat PatchGuard, but I don't know how. I'm not an expert in the field of low-level NT kernel stuff.

please release your jailbreak so that other people can help you.

If i got it correctly, it will BSOD in a hour of running, so releasing it to public is not a good idea. Maybe via PM to other devs, but that depends on OP.

why not change the variables back after you launch your unsigned exe?

windowsrtc said:
why not change the variables back after you launch your unsigned exe?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think about doing this too. Can we discard hacked? If it can done. Will it have problem with running unsigned exe? And did we know exactly when did PatchGuard notice about hack?

Myriachan said:
However, this leaves one thing to be desired: executing ARM code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps I'm missing something, ... why do you want to do this? The reason I ask is because this seems to be your motivation for wanting to "defeat" patch guard.
WRT simply running native applications/driver - If you can successfully load a driver, even once, then there are a few easy ways to support this without a patch guard defeat.
Cheers!

bfosterjr said:
Perhaps I'm missing something, ... why do you want to do this? The reason I ask is because this seems to be your motivation for wanting to "defeat" patch guard.
WRT simply running native applications/driver - If you can successfully load a driver, even once, then there are a few easy ways to support this without a patch guard defeat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That it's currently impossible to execute ARM code reliably on Windows RT is a major reason that Firefox hasn't been ported. Fixing that would require patching two context-switch routines in ntoskrnl.exe.
You're right that there are various ways of loading unsigned executables and drivers once the initial driver is bootstrapped. ci.dll and ntoskrnl.exe have so many variables that aren't protected by PatchGuard that this is pretty much inevitable. Ironically, removing the lockdown from WinDbg, PowerShell and VBScript is actually harder than running unsigned code when using this attack.
Defeating PatchGuard would be the optimal experience for users.

...
...

Myriachan said:
That it's currently impossible to execute ARM code reliably on Windows RT is a major reason that Firefox hasn't been ported.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I don't agree. There is no hard requirement for ARM code that I can see. The major reason for a lack of FF port is that the native RT community is too small to get behind the port to sort out re-writing parts of the code base. There is also the large build system/process that needs to be shifted to VS. Throw in the lack of a public RT 8.1 JB.. and there is little motivation for this community to invest the time/effort in making FF work.
Don't get me wrong, FF will likely come to RT (even 8.1) eventually.. but I don't see the lack of ARM code being the roadblock. Its time and effort along with a new JB.

bfosterjr said:
Actually, I don't agree. There is no hard requirement for ARM code that I can see. The major reason for a lack of FF port is that the native RT community is too small to get behind the port to sort out re-writing parts of the code base. There is also the large build system/process that needs to be shifted to VS. Throw in the lack of a public RT 8.1 JB.. and there is little motivation for this community to invest the time/effort in making FF work.
Don't get me wrong, FF will likely come to RT (even 8.1) eventually.. but I don't see the lack of ARM code being the roadblock. Its time and effort along with a new JB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The javascript JIT engine is to ARMv7 not THUMB_2 though.

SixSixSevenSeven said:
The javascript JIT engine is to ARMv7 not THUMB_2 though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I gathered as much. I'm suggesting a re-write of that as part of the port.
Cheers!

Possible, but not easy. The result would likely be significantly less efficient... but better than no JIT at all. It substantially increases the effort required for porting, though.
As for PatchGuard... I don't know as much about it as I'd like, but the fact that it only checks periodically suggests something that we can anticipate and head off, assuming we can get our own drivers loaded... hmm. This is a pretty "out there" solution, but is there any chance that the version of PG from RT8.0 could be substituted in? That may assume a greater degree of encapsulation of PG functionality than is actually warranted, but it does seem to me that, if we can't modify it, we might be able to just replace (or possibly remove) it. Another option: rather than modifying the value itself, modify the code that checks it? I mean, if they were smart, that's under PG as well, but it *might* not be. Either bypassing the check for the values, or the signature check, or just spoofing the signature check, or taking it a level even further and replacing the whole loader function with a clone that lacks the check (which allows the original to remain intact, aside from however the shim is injected).
Any which way, a lot of binary RE... ick, but that's life.

A few ideas:
1) Put a memory read breakpoint on the memory addresses you wish to change, check the context reading it and change it to what it should be if it's PatchGuard, and what you want if it's not.
2) Hook BugCheck to make it just return if PatchGuard calls it (I seem to recall reading something about PG wiping the stack/any context before calling BugCheck, so this may not work)
3) Forcibly enable Debug mode VIA setting the required kernel flag/calling the proper function (kdStartDebugger? something like that; I had found it at one point) to enable the debugger. I have no idea if PG will sense this on pre-existing threads or not, but if it does then it should shut itself down.
4) Check if THIS approach works in 8.1 (I suspect not, since it was published for 8.0 previews)
5) (This would work for g_ciOptions, but not patching the interrupt handlers), hook the usermode function that queries the state of the signing, make it call a driver that changes the bit back, check, then call the driver to set it to default again. You would only get a BSoD if you were really unlucky and PatchGuard happened to run during the 30ms that the flag was changed.
I'd like to play with some of these ideas, but without access to the current prototype (hint hint), and not having a PC I want to upgrade to 8.1 right now, it's difficult.

netham45 said:
A few ideas:
1) Put a memory read breakpoint on the memory addresses you wish to change, check the context reading it and change it to what it should be if it's PatchGuard, and what you want if it's not.
2) Hook BugCheck to make it just return if PatchGuard calls it (I seem to recall reading something about PG wiping the stack/any context before calling BugCheck, so this may not work)
3) Forcibly enable Debug mode VIA setting the required kernel flag/calling the proper function (kdStartDebugger? something like that; I had found it at one point) to enable the debugger. I have no idea if PG will sense this on pre-existing threads or not, but if it does then it should shut itself down.
4) Check if THIS approach works in 8.1 (I suspect not, since it was published for 8.0 previews)
5) (This would work for g_ciOptions, but not patching the interrupt handlers), hook the usermode function that queries the state of the signing, make it call a driver that changes the bit back, check, then call the driver to set it to default again. You would only get a BSoD if you were really unlucky and PatchGuard happened to run during the 30ms that the flag was changed.
I'd like to play with some of these ideas, but without access to the current prototype (hint hint), and not having a PC I want to upgrade to 8.1 right now, it's difficult.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. You can't set a read breakpoint because PatchGuard is also checking the contents of the interrupt vectors/registers. It would notice that someone is using the hardware breakpoints before it tried to read kernel memory.
2. Yes, PatchGuard overwrites KeBugCheckEx with a pristine copy among other tricks.
3. PatchGuard knows that the debugger was not enabled at boot, and will not allow it to be enabled. It will bugcheck if you try to enable it.
4. It's possible that the approach where you look for the self-decryption code at the beginning of the DPC handlers would work.
5. There is a better way, closely related to how I'm writing my installation program, to allow unsigned PEs to load. It would escape PatchGuard's notice. A user-mode hook would be required in order to neuter wldp.dll, though, since ntoskrnl.exe would still tell programs that the current policy was locked down.
I think I can do everything I need to do except execute ARM code reliably without harassing PatchGuard.
Melissa

As a plain user, I have a question:
Why do we have to use ARM Instruction Set? Isn't just Thumb-2 okay? I thought other part of Windows all runs with Thumb-2 fine.

sahack said:
As a plain user, I have a question:
Why do we have to use ARM Instruction Set? Isn't just Thumb-2 okay? I thought other part of Windows all runs with Thumb-2 fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a lot of software that we would like to port over that is written in arm assembly. We would have to rewrite it to THUMB-2 to use it on Windows RT, though. Porting software is (relatively) easy, rewriting it is difficult.

sahack said:
As a plain user, I have a question:
Why do we have to use ARM Instruction Set? Isn't just Thumb-2 okay? I thought other part of Windows all runs with Thumb-2 fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common one that needs the ARM instruction set would be a javascript engine. V8 which is the javascript JIT used in chrome only has x86 and ARMv7 versions available, it doesn't have a THUMB_2 version. Although V8 itself can compile for THUMB2, that is only the JIT'er itself, it will only ever JIT to the full instruction set. So to port chrome we wouldnt be able to use V8, there might be a way to get it to compile using the windows javascript engine (which is slower than V8 but perfectly fine) or something but its still a significant obstacle.
The same applies to quite a few other softwares.
Then as netham says, we have software written in arm assembly which people have requested, thats great but it takes alot of effort to rewrite it in thumb2 assembly.
If you have software which can indeed compile for thumb2 and function on thumb2, yeah thats great. But there is some which doesnt.

netham45 said:
There is a lot of software that we would like to port over that is written in arm assembly. We would have to rewrite it to THUMB-2 to use it on Windows RT, though. Porting software is (relatively) easy, rewriting it is difficult.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay... I used to think that only JIT compilers and media decoders needed that...
But that gives another question.... Were we able to let the CPU stay in ARM mode in Windows RT 8.0?
(And if PatchGuard checks periodically, is it possible to just reset its timer once in a while?)

sahack said:
Okay... I used to think that only JIT compilers and media decoders needed that...
But that gives another question.... Were we able to let the CPU stay in ARM mode in Windows RT 8.0?
(And if PatchGuard checks periodically, is it possible to just reset its timer once in a while?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First question, no.
Second question, thats what the thread is discussing although your suggestion is perhaps worth a look into (if myriachan hasnt already)

SixSixSevenSeven said:
First question, no.
Second question, thats what the thread is discussing although your suggestion is perhaps worth a look into (if myriachan hasnt already)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, you could reset the timer on PatchGuard continuously, if you can find all its timers and perfectly distinguish them from those that were created by legitimate drivers. That's the harder part, unfortunately. =/

Office RT on Surface dump

Can anyone copy the Office RT folder on the Surface, compress it, and upload it?
I want to fool with it and make it work on a AMD64 computer.

mr_verystock said:
Can anyone copy the Office RT folder on the Surface, compress it, and upload it?
I want to fool with it and make it work on a AMD64 computer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you have a lack of understanding on how processors can be incompatible. Without emulation it wont work on AMD64.

This is also a really weird thing to want to do... it's just a slightly crippled version of Office 2013, compiled to the THUMB2 instruction set for ARM processors. Take a standard Office install, remove the ability to run VBA macros, and you've basically got Office RT. Nothing exciting or special to it...

GoodDayToDie said:
This is a really weird thing to want to do... it's just a slightly crippled version of Office 2013, compiled to the THUMB2 instruction set for ARM processors. Take a standard Office install, remove the ability to run VBA macros, and you've basically got Office RT. Nothing exciting or special to it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. But I want an activated version of Office, so I looked at the Office RT. But I'll keep that in mind.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
Then you have a lack of understanding on how processors can be incompatible. Without emulation it wont work on AMD64.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing from you, 6677. PLEASE LOOK AT MY POST AGAIN BEFORE TELLING ME THAT. Didn't I say I want to mess with it and get it working on AMD64 instruction? If GoodDayToDie tells the truth about MS compiling Office to THUMB2, then it could be done vice versa. PLUS, I'll learn more about programming.

mr_verystock said:
Thanks. But I want an activated version of Office, so I looked at the Office RT. But I'll keep that in mind.
Nothing from you, 6677. PLEASE LOOK AT MY POST AGAIN BEFORE TELLING ME THAT. Didn't I say I want to mess with it and get it working on AMD64 instruction? If GoodDayToDie tells the truth about MS compiling Office to THUMB2, then it could be done vice versa. PLUS, I'll learn more about programming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually you just reiterated my point.
Software is compiled from a human readable plain text representation to machine code, in this case THUMB2. You cannot take that THUMB2 code and port it to x86 or AMD64 and will learn nothing in the process.
To me it sounds more like you are after a copy of office for free and trying to disguise your reasoning for pirating the software behind claims you want to port it to AMD64.

In a very, very technical sense, dynamic recompilation (converting from one machine code to another) is possible, but it's a slow process that produces slow code, the effort it requires is wholly un-worthwhile, and it would teach very little about programming in the conventional sense (although it's a fun concept from a general computer science perspective, recreating an abstract syntax tree from optimized machine code is only very rarely useful).

GoodDayToDie said:
In a very, very technical sense, dynamic recompilation (converting from one machine code to another) is possible, but it's a slow process that produces slow code, the effort it requires is wholly un-worthwhile, and it would teach very little about programming in the conventional sense (although it's a fun concept from a general computer science perspective, recreating an abstract syntax tree from optimized machine code is only very rarely useful).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I understand.
But I am still in need for a dump to analyze. Anyone?