Raymond Moyers wrote:
> I will have to dismiss as nonsensical, especially since what
> tools are on the system is all up to you, such as the
> microlinux's like linux on a floppy, linuxrouter project
> and other speciality oriented package creations illustrate.
I want TAR on a floppy!
> The second part, upgrades Are you demanding to compile
> without a compiler ?
No but it does seem to require a lot of scripts and filters
to compile most programs.
> You can get updates in binary form in just about every linux
> distro I can name, as its their standard upgrade method
> others deal only with source, like rocklinux if that what you
> want instead.
but try and find a odd library from just the loader message.
lib.fo.bar.43 is not found. Where do you find such a breast?
> Winblows dont come bundled with symbols in the .dlls .h files and
> devtools, and any of the other things, and i hear you complain
> not how would your logic above apply equally to winblows ?
They will not let me nuke M$. :)
> See like the shared library complaint you are asserting
> an atvantage as the opposite. and the assertion does not
> withstand scrutiny.
What happens when you need 50 thousand libraries as most
larger versions of linux does?
> > I don't use perl so why need my system have it if the only purpose is
> > for configure scripts just so I can download the software I want.
>
> Then get the binary,
That was to get the binary!
> All non=specialty linuxes i know about come with perl precooked
> and software authors take note of what a system can be expected to
> have, and code with that in mind, he would look at your aversion
> to his use of perl as being unreasonable.
>
> > I guess I am spoiled by T.COM a very nice 4096 byte full screen text
> > editor under DOS.
>
> Look at :
> http://linuxassembly.org/resources.html#projects
> various UNIX projects written in assembly language
> of course all of them feature extremely small size
>
> > Other than the 64kb file limit I think it is the best editor out there.
>
> small and simple has a quality all its own doesnt it,
>
> early versions of e3 have a less than 5000 byte foot print
> and no 64k limit since it isnt built on that old real mode
> tiny memory model, its now up to 12k because of feature creep
> such as :
> command syntax Wordstar, EMACS, Pico, nedit, vi
> independent of libc ( needs no library)
> numeric calculator UNDO feature
> piping through /bin/sed (using stream editor as a sub process)
> are currently designed for Linux and *BSD only,
> anyway this opens e3's door to the world of regular expressions.
> http://sax.sax.de/~adlibit/
>
> Pretty impressive for a standalone 12k exec eh ?
Nice thanks for the info.
> If you want to craft a linux that runs on really absurdly tiny hardware,
> you can do it. IBM demoed a tiny linux on a wrist watch close to same
> time time they announced it on their mainframe,
> how is that for range of scale.
Nah ... I like the Nixie tube watch better!
> Unix has had 30 years of people looking for holes and filling
> them, in the base you would find it hard to discover any
> more existing cracks or gaps to fill.
> its all about new drivers and new ideas on things like the VM
> to push the performance envelope.
> neat stuff for a kernel hacker, but even Linus himself
> said that everything exciting was happening in userspace
Linix/unix has its good and bad points. So does windows or any other
OS. It is just linux is not my cup of tea.
BTW tar is hard to find on floppy linux.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
Received on Tue May 07 2002 - 20:46:41 BST