From owner-freebsd-small Sat Oct 3 12:11:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14699 for freebsd-small-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 12:11:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp01.wxs.nl (smtp01.wxs.nl [195.121.6.61]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14669 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asmodai@wxs.nl) Received: from diabolique ([195.121.58.98]) by smtp01.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB4A1D; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:11:07 +0200 Message-Id: X-Sender: skywise@pop.wxs.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Demo Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:12:45 +0200 To: Andrzej Bialecki , Jerry Hicks From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) Cc: FreeBSD Small In-Reply-To: References: <199810012128.RAA29146@jhicks.glenatl.glenayre.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 07:59 02-10-98 , Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Jerry Hicks wrote: > >> YAPL with some pretty desirable attributes for this sort of application. I >> believe you're right on track Adrzej. > >Heh.. Thanks for confirmation :-) Well, I know it's not _that_ popular >, but it gives tremendous programmability and >flexibility, compared to what /bin/sh gives with much more bloat. And I'd >rather not invent YAPL, tripping over the same pitfalls as others did - >Forth is very mature and well defined. Never played with Forth, what does it compare to? >The issue here is not to rewrite all FreeBSD userland in Forth - that >would be stupid. The problem here is to invent such an UI which could >easily be tweaked to individual needs, and allow for automated tasks, >while _incorporating_ necessary userland functions into it. Most >Forth implementations I saw thus far (ca. 6) allow for relatively easy >integration of C modules, accessible as primitive words from inside the >interpreter. That wasn't my suggestion, but the current setup of FreeBSD is too limiting or too scattered throughout directories to be of any use for the picoBSD setup. But I think that's the question, how far are ye willing to go to preserve usability on the picoBSD setups, as far as I now can foresee, we use these disks for quick and 'dirty' routers. How much use is there to support every known command that don't actually add on to the purpose of which the disks were designed (correct me if wrong offcourse =). As I see it, we should/could use the FreeBSD cores, extend it with things like Zebra and the likes and modify the UI/shell to resemble configuration commands like IOS and Shiva/SpiderSoftware routing stuff... Offcourse, just my two cents =) Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / Asmodai 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 iQA/AwUBNhZpHoY752GnxADpEQJRDACg4UiG15PM1IAAZueQZMsYjcw57N8AoLAW jmZtZSIa3YCuQjiv+AT78iUz =geav -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message