From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 2 12:27:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29294 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:27:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29287 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:27:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA25314; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:24:43 +0100 (CET) To: Andrzej Bialecki cc: Mike Smith , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New boot loader and alternate kernels In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:19:12 +0100." Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:24:43 +0100 Message-ID: <25312.910038283@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Andr zej Bialecki writes: >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> >For on-disk usage, the key issue to me is avoiding anti-bloatist >> >complaint (which have their fair justification). I'd like to think we >> >can stabilise at an object under the 100k mark, although there are of >> >course no real hard limits yet. >> >> Sigh, If Satoshi hadn't yanked tcl out, we could have used that... > >You must mean tcl4 or even earlier, then... Newer versions of tcl are >somewhere around 300kB. Besides, you talk about 100k mark as of tcl object >limit, whereas Mike was talking probably about the whole bootloader >size, right? If you par down tcl to "just the language" it is about 80k still I think. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message