Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:06:40 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcin Jessa <lists@yazzy.org> Cc: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, fullermd@over-yonder.net Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <20050622120405.H26664@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20050621205730.5ef76166.lists@yazzy.org> References: <20050619155228.Y6413@fledge.watson.org> <66959.1119209763@critter.freebsd.dk> <20050619213612.GD8597@over-yonder.net> <20050621132608.GF738@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050621205730.5ef76166.lists@yazzy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Marcin Jessa wrote: > You can read how it's done on NetBSD: > http://www.wifibsd.org/support/netbsd-on-cf.txt > > We do similar things with FreeBSD, but in opposite to nanobsd, picobsd > and such we dont do any crunching of binaries, we just use dynamically > linked libraries. This makes live a lot of easier (ever tried to crunch > openssl?). FYI, while PicoBSD does crunch binaries, NanoBSD does not. > Also the rootfs on FreeBSD can be loaded as a module by loader or > "inserted" into the kernel. PicoBSD and i guess NanoBSD use the second > option. PicoBSD does do this, but NanoBSD doesn't. NanoBSD is basically a modified version of our diskless environment, in that it relies on a standard layout tree, with the exception that it uses populated memory file systems for /var and /etc. As we see storage device size increase, we're seing embedded environments use more and more standard installs, and likewise, the FreeBSD CD install environment move over also (it now uses a live file system). Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050622120405.H26664>