On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:49:42 -0600 (CST),
"The Great Mr. Kurtz [David A. Gatwood]" <davagatw@Mars.utm.edU> wrote:
> Constraints:
> 
> 1.	The microkernel and microroot, complete with a little operating
> memory, must fit in a 5 Meg system without swapping, or must make
> provisions for swapping to a MacOS file (VM Storage, anyone?)

I don't know why you call them "micro"-kernel and "micro"-root.  Why
introduce a confusion?  The term "microkernel" is widely used for some
other meaning though it's rather ill-defined, AFAIC.  Why not just
call them "streamlined kernel" and "miniroot"?  A "micro"-root *is* a
miniroot after all, isn't it?

> 2.	The following programs would be required in the microroot:
[bunch o' commands]
> 3.	The following files would need to be included:
> 	A.	/dev/sdxx
> 
> The big kicker is number 2 at the top.  The idea is, if programs like rm,
> etc. won't fit, a pared down version is made available w/o the mini-shell. 

I'm not sure what you mean by the "pared down", but I think you should
take a look at the FreeBSD installation.  They've come up with an
interesting method to spare as many a bit on the disk(ette) as
possible.  Basically, they statically link every command you need into
*one single* binary executable which, when run, changes its behavior
by looking at argv[0].  This way, you store only one copy of each
library function that is shared among the commands, thus conserving
the precious disk space.

> If you only have three drives, there's no reason to include sd3x+, etc. 

Yeah, but eliminating them won't save much disk space, though.

> If memory were really tight, a stripped down microkernel might be used.... 
[...]
> You _would_ need fpe, though.  :-)

Not really, if you compile everything, not just the kernel but also
the user-land stuff, with -msoft-float.  But of course, it'll crawl.

> Also, the big question would be whether the shared
> library support would take more or less space than the statically linked
> binaries (rm, cp, mkdir, rmdir, gunzip, tar, mkfs/newfs, installer, setnet
> program, that's about it).  I tend to think that in a 'microroot'
> situation (extreme of a miniroot), shared libs would be too bulky, but I'm
> not certain of that.  Again, UYOBJ.  :)

See above.

Ken