Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:44:21 -0800 From: "Sam Leffler (at Usenix)" <sam@usenix.org> To: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com>, "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@aciri.org> Cc: <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: crunch.conf for picobsd+openssh Message-ID: <07f801c17121$d67ed3e0$a665a8c0@errno.com> References: <052601c1705c$9844c370$a665a8c0@errno.com> <20011118105013.A5104@iguana.aciri.org> <20011119024418.B9406@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 10:50:13AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > The main problem with the "open"s{sh,cp,shd} is that they
> > bring in a huge amount of things, if i remember well it is
> > over 500KB _compressed_, which is unacceptable bloat for pico-BSD.
>
> I think it would be worth while to try to generalize the pico-BSD
> scripts to deal with different target media sizes.
>
Several people have done stuff like this. One that's easily accessible is
http://sourceforge.net/projects/thewall.
> That is, we're all worrying about what will fit on a 1.44MB floppy,
> when other bootable media are becoming more profligate. 2.88 Mbyte
> floppies, LS-120 "SuperDisk" floppies, 80 MByte mini-CDRoms,
> 680MByte CDRoms are all widely deployed bootable media.
>
I suspect most people looking at doing stuff like this are using compact
flash.
> I still think that Pico-BSD ought to be bootable from read-only
> media, which might be what distinguishes it from just a pared-down
> RELEASE, but for some uses it might want to take up more than what a
> floppy can hold.
>
There are many things that differentiate this sort of environment, but all
are very targeted. The requirements for a small memory footprint and
stability in a swap-less environment are what I consider most critical.
Sam
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?07f801c17121$d67ed3e0$a665a8c0>