Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:40:57 +0400 From: Igor Pokrovsky <ip@doom.homeunix.org> To: Patrick Tracanelli <eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br> Cc: Igor Pokrovsky <ip@doom.homeunix.org>, small@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TinyBSD Call For Testers Message-ID: <20050719194057.GB10393@doom.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <42DD51F7.40503@freebsdbrasil.com.br> References: <42DBF250.1060405@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <20050719174500.GA1594@doom.homeunix.org> <42DD51F7.40503@freebsdbrasil.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:18:15PM -0300, Patrick Tracanelli wrote: > Igor Pokrovsky wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 03:17:52PM -0300, Jean Milanez Melo wrote: > > > >>Hello gentlemen, > >> > >>In the last saturday a new port has been added under sysutils/ category, > >>ports/sysutils/tinybsd. TinyBSD is a tool which was meant to allow an > >>easy way to build embedded systems based on FreeBSD. It is based on > >>userland copying, library dependencies check/copy and kernel build. > > > > > >What's wrong with PicoBSD? > > > >-ip > > > > PicoBSD is architectural different. > > It is a single crunched program which once loaded is kept always in > memory, while live systems such as TinyBSD, nanobsd, and usually live > CDs load to memory what it needs from the main storage device (cf card, > pendrive, cd, whatever). So it is different at all. After that, PicoBSD > worked very fine before the last releases on RELENG_4, while at RELENG_5 > it became quite hard to build without problems. I personally enjoy > PicoBSD a lot, but it is not an available choice nowadays, 'cos of > building issues. On the other hand, Luigi has recently made a number of > changes which puts PicoBSD back into "yes, it builds" state, which is > great! But in RELENG_5 it stills not accomplishing its goal stated in > picobsd(8), which is: > > picobsd -- floppy disk based FreeBSD system > > ..."try to keep them functional and fitting in the 1.44MB floppy despite > the unavoidable increases in the size of the kernel and its applications" > > In fact fs.picobsd has ~ 1.4MB, plus the kernel, which could take it to > ~3MB total size. Maybe in a 2.8 floppy it would fit today, but it is > somehow different from what used to be in RELENG_4. > > Anyway, there is nothing wrong w/ PicoBSD. It is just different. Thanks for answering a stupid question. I simply somehow missed the goal of TinyBSD. Just had an association with PicoBSD. As I'm conservative enough to use PicoBSD on RELENG_4, I never tried it on RELENG_5. But how about building PicoBSD on RELENG_5 and burn acquired image on a CD? With CD there should be no space problem. Of cause in that case it's better to use TinyBSD, Live CD or whatever. But just curious about PicoBSD thing. -ip -- Consumer assistance doesn't.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050719194057.GB10393>