From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 15 22:27:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E651AAFE; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 22:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4A87C24; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 22:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local ([12.157.112.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s2FK0kuK075997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5324B169.3000805@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:00:41 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lev@FreeBSD.org, Vincent Hoffman Subject: Re: GSoC proposition: pico FreeBSD for soho MIPS routers (OpenWRT alike) References: <53243AD5.1000603@unsane.co.uk> <138446120.20140315154414@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <138446120.20140315154414@serebryakov.spb.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, CeDeROM X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 22:27:19 -0000 On 3/15/14, 4:44 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > You wrote 15 марта 2014 г., 15:34:45: > > VH> I think this is mostly done? I'd suggest that you look at > VH> https://github.com/kientzle/crochet-freebsd > Problem not in a script (we have nanobsd for it!), but minimal size of > usable system, both compressed (think: 16Mb or even 4Mb of Flash) and > uncompressed (think: 32Mb of RAM). > hense picoBSD nanoBSD is small but picoBSD is smaller