From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 31 10:44:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B05C16A4CE for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:44:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9079543D39 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:44:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2VAlUes016307; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:47:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <424BD3E6.2040002@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:41:42 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ticso@cicely.de References: <20050331014311.GA96606@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20050331103614.GL33677@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20050331103614.GL33677@cicely12.cicely.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: Wilko Bulte cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: So, who makes this one run FreeBSD? ;-) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:44:02 -0000 Bernd Walter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 03:43:12AM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > >>http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8386088053.html > > > As others already said - to small to run FreeBSD. > No MMU, very tight RAM and code space. > Note that they are not based on Linux, but on uCLinux, which is > something different. > RTEMS should be a good candidate - it is not Linux, but unfortunately > has large portions under GPL too. > But considered the small price distance to the smallest Soekris, > which runs FreeBSD, only the size and supply power is an interesting > point. > An MMU-less port of any BSD would be very worthwhile, even if it requires a radical divergence from the original codebase. I was hoping that such a treat would appear out of NetBSD, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Scott