Subject: netbsd -- why so fat? (was Re: NetBSD-current/i386 release build fails)
To: None <>
From: David Young <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/01/2004 14:36:58
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 07:12:13PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > Is there any real reason we have to have an INSTALL_TINY,
> > i.e. an install that fits onto a single floopy?  Are there any
> > machines totally incapable of having a floopy switch happen in
> > the middle of the boot sequence?
> >
> > We may have outgrown our bounds, it would seem...
> The original intent was to support installation of NetBSD on i386
> machines with only 4MB of RAM.  Now, I think it is a Long Time
> Ago that we were able to pull off that feat.

FWIW, I am Really Disappointed that I cannot run NetBSD on 4MB machines.
NetBSD does not require even more memory on RISC-y architectures, like
MIPS?  Seems to me that there are lots of devices that will never run
such a NetBSD because it is so fat.  I am thinking of < $100 802.11 APs.

Has anybody got pointers for trimming the size?


David Young             OJC Technologies      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933