On 03/04/17 07:41, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> No PTYs seems like a big limitation. This means no sshd? > Again, my ultimate system target is in the sub-megabyte of RAM. I > really doubt you'll be able to fit an SSH server in there even if PTYs > were supported, unless sshd (or dropbear) can be made really tiny. > Otherwise you most probably have sufficient resources to run the regular > TTY code. Are we talking small microcontrollers here? The smallest machine in terms of RAM I ever recall running Linux on was a 386SX/25 MHz with 4MB RAM, and that had a MMU. I recall Slackware requiring that you booted with a mounted floppy (no ramdisk) and possibly even required that you had a second floppy drive formatted as swap so you'd be able to get through the install without oomkiller knocking on your door. The same machine could also "run" Windows 95. When I say "run", it was more like a slow crawl. Bull sharks washed onto land by flood waters run faster. Sub-megabyte system support is a noble goal, but I'm wondering how practical such systems would be, and whether an embedded real-time kernel might be a better choice than Linux on such systems. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
