>> Currently uClinux is the only opensource
>> Unix-OS for the embedded space.  All of the other embedded OS's
>> like Windriver and Windows Embedded XP are commercial. 
> You seem to have missed eCOS and RTEMS in there, both of which are
> free for commercial use and offer friendly licensing terms.  Given
> the lack of memory protection in uClinux, the only advantage it
> offers over eCOS or RTEMS is the familiar programming environment,
> at the cost of significantly more memory and processor overhead
> and a license model that is not friendly to commercial products.

I am not familar with RTEMS, but eCOS is the uClinux port by Redhat,
and has the same lack of memory protection that uClinux has.  I am
quite familar with the uClinux kernel and written numerous apps for
it.  But I am a die-hard NetBSD user and consider it ideal for the
embedded space.
 
> eCOS or RTEMS can be shoveled into < 256K of flash and run out of
> flash.  Depending on your application, you might be able to use
> only the resources present on the chip.

True, it is easy to fit userland and kernel in < 256KB with bare
bone stuff, especially with the cool embedded development hardware
that uClinux sells at:

https://www.uclinux.com/orderdesk/index.html

BTW, in my case I have a lot of stuff that I use on the Arm
platform, including NFS (client), PPP (client+server), PPPoE,
DHCP (client+server), SNMP, FTP, WWW, Telnet, SSL, IPTables
(for packet filtering & NAT), and lots of proprietary apps, so
I need a lot more flash.  I have everything working now with
uClinux with less then 2MB of flash, but I would still prefer
NetBSD.

>> Anyways my question wasn't whether or not it was commerically
>> viable for Wasabi Systems to develop a NetBSD MMU-less port.
>> The folks at Wasabi are incredible brilliant, and I have great
>> respect for them, but it may be more benifical to have people
>> experienced with very small embedded systems to work on a NetBSD
>> port, since it might be commerically beneficial for them to do
>> so, as oppose to paying licencing fees to Windriver.
> Or it might just be better to educate yourself about alternative
> systems that are more suitable for such a small environment, and
> to make sure NetBSD is a well-supported development platform
> for those systems.
 
I am quite experienced and proficient with uClinux, as are a few
of my friends.  I am only considering a NetBSD non-MMU port at
this stage, since I love NetBSD so much, even though I can
continue to use uClinux for my embedded work.  I just thought I
would ask the NetBSD guru's some advice before getting serious,
since it would be a *HUGE* undertaking!

Alicia.