How Small Can Linux Be? 12
Taco Cowboy asks: "In the embedded market, the smaller the better, and I've scoured the Net in my own personal search for the tiniest Linux kernel available for the embedded market, and so far, the best I can come up with is one that claims to have a 143K footprint! (Sorry, I have NOT tested that product, so I won't know if the claim is valid or not). Is there anyone out there who knows anything smaller?"
Hmm... (Score:4)
I'd say that the question you should be asking is "what is the smallest kernel which will do what I want?"
Didn't they... (Score:1)
Re:Pronunciation? (Score:1)
No (Score:1)
do you want ls? ps? mount? nfs? /proc? verbose error messages? ramdisks? modutils? syslogd? telnetd?
I'd lean towards a system that lets you have the smallest configurable footprint, while offering you the largest suite of "optional" tools, most of which are not optional during the debug sequence.
On a related note - somewhat OT... (Score:2)
I just want to try something different on my CoCo, away from the TRS DOS (m$ basic, etc), on it...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Busybox?? (Score:3)
Re:linux proxy (Score:1)
Re:Are you married to the idea of Linux? (Score:1)
Any idea what the minimal size of eCos is when it has Posix 1003.1 support, a fully functional TCP/IP stack, ethernet driver, RAM disk? I've been using uClinux [uclinux.org] for a while, and it weighs in at around 500-600 Kb (including all buffers), but that's a fully functional Linux system with inetd, telnetd, a shell, a couple of mounted NFS shares etc. I like it a lot but if I can get one that's smaller, I'd like that better :-)
Are you married to the idea of Linux? (Score:3)
Good luck!
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
I'd say that the question you should be asking is "what is the smallest kernel which will do what I want?"
I agree with this statement. A stripped down, unfunctional linux kernel is not much different than a stripped down Windows, or Mac kernel. What is the point of stripping down a linux kernel, tearing all the guts and usefullness out of it, just to say that it's a linux kernel.
I don't mean for this to come out as flamebate, but some Linux users just use it to say that it's not windows (To a degree, I'm one of them). But when you attempt to make such a small and reduced kernel that doens't support anything. It doesn't matter if you call it Windows, Linux, BSD, or Gaggle Blobs, it still doesn't do anything.
My point is this: There is a difference between a small and functional Kernel, and a small kernel that is just a waste of space anyways.
I stand corrected! (Score:3)
Pronunciation? (Score:1)
It looks pretty interesting. Have you thought about posting as a seperate story?
Questions, questions, questions...