Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:42:44 -0800 From: John Clark <jeclark2006@aim.com> To: Brad Walker <bwalker@musings.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>, "freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org" <freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ? about kernel size.. Message-ID: <A40E6CF0-62D5-4956-A2BB-AAD7BFF60A6B@aim.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPKZHbV1D5hTXCCRAYy6XkkcqJEizHH8ymK5dgsCsvXEeRd5jQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPKZHbVyPji-bZwDzM77TN6qybjRcf%2BZe5r6WZmbG98LkhT-rg@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfriqr24Lh9ZuptaC0gEm6gAV6LN9XHcVAJtbyaBejEgNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPKZHbW%2BG7WnSU__yeYBVPqs8MPmFm-5q_wM4sm9FxHhEEgPDg@mail.gmail.com> <1457473674.1406.46.camel@freebsd.org> <CAPKZHbX8BXKC_=8PPvtasqE%2BRj96_mPQkqdRt=hqU6fazxpPfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=yW0=VHkjed8NYxRmE7dqtd8=bN8KLmav9-bBEZ-U1YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPKZHbV1D5hTXCCRAYy6XkkcqJEizHH8ymK5dgsCsvXEeRd5jQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 8, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Brad Walker <bwalker@musings.com> wrote: > For example, we have a requirement to implement SSL/TLS, BTLE, and ftp = on a > microkernel. By the time this is done, it will be worthwhile to look = at > alternatives. Not to mention, the needs just keep coming. >=20 > -brad w. At which point I become very vociferous in arguing against using a = process so limited that it can=92t run a BSD/Linux derivative. This sort of happened with the recent brush with the 8051=85 The Boss = wanted to have the 8051 do some TCP/IP with some sort of Ethernet interface that was available from the company that made the = 8051=85 At which point I found a $15 AP based on MIPS/Atheros SoC, and provided = not only TCP/IP but also a local hotspot for control/monitoring, = ethernet hub, mini http server, etc. If someone wanted to reduce cost from $15 they could have gotten the = Eval package and gotten the design to a manufacturing house for much = less as well=85 Of course they would talking about volumes many times greater than 100s=85= The 8051 controller was still in there, but the =91fancy=92 stuff was on = a board that could handle =91fancy=92 stuff without making the project = 2-3 years worth of development on a minimal processor platform. Another aspect of the =91minimal system=92 that is required to do = =91fancy=92 stuff, is that often the TCP/IP implementation is sort of = =91half-baked=92 and can introduce problems which go far beyond just not accessing the device=85 it could cause problems for = the entire network, and require much debugging to solve=85 or even = understand what=92s going on=85 This may be ok if the devices are located in conveniently accessible = locations=85 but if one has to go to a remote location via helicopter or = pack in equipment with mules=85 such issues become bigger than the cost savings of some minimal = solution. John Clark.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A40E6CF0-62D5-4956-A2BB-AAD7BFF60A6B>