Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:02:11 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: James da Silva <jds@torrentnet.com> Cc: FreeBSD Small <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) Message-ID: <Version.32.19981006235657.0104eeb0@pop.wxs.nl> In-Reply-To: <199810051918.PAA21621@torrentnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 21:18 05-10-98 , James da Silva wrote:
> > > >IOS is not a good example to follow here.
> > > Well it might be a source for command names ;)
> > Not even that. IOS's command interface is a festering abomination.
> > Emulating it would be a major error.
>
>Unless you're trying to sell a router to people who have it memorized
>already, warts and all. :-)
But that's not what we're aiming at ;)
>It seems to me that the basic goal here for picoBSD is to be able to
>configure the whole thing from one script file, including perhaps some
>extensibility (which IOS does not have).
Extensibility sounds good, would an basic UI work as a start point and then
for the various configs create some sort of plug-in that allows normal
FreeBSD boxen to creates personalized disks of picoBSD (each with his own
components needed to perform a given task)?
>An extensible config language can be very small and very quickly
>implemented. I had thought the TCL interpreter core (minus all the library
>routines) was very small, maybe something went wrong. Forth certainly
>qualifies. Small schemes (eg siod) qualify. A simple line-based mini-
>language can be cons'ed up in a weekend. Choosing among these is pure
>religion.
What we have to look at with the languages are:
size, speed, extensibility and especially use.
>If forth is being considered as way to implement a lot of the
>non-performance critical "glue" code, and not necessarily as the interface
>through which the admin operates, then that's less controversial.
I thought Andrej was very clear in that? Or maybe I was misinterpreting
him, but as far as I understood it, he wanted to use Forth for the whole UI
thing which provides the command set for the admins to use.
>Wouldn't Java or some other bytecode language be similarly compact, or at
>least in the same ballpark? I know, a typical java runtime, like tcl, is
>bloated; but how much of that is necessary? How big would a simple JVM
>with only the basic classes be?
Dunno, any way of finding out?
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / Asmodai <asmodai(at)wxs.nl>
ICQ-UIN: 1564317 .:. Ninth Circle Enterprises
Network/Security Specialist
/==|| FreeBSD and picoBSD, the Power to Serve ||==\
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>;
iQA/AwUBNhqFVIY752GnxADpEQJxHQCg/U5OMBzkI427XshJqcbqugH1XA4An21a
h2TcEZIMQxnLNQQov5Cpz+LN
=intb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Version.32.19981006235657.0104eeb0>