Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2
kaduk at MIT.EDU
Tue Sep 27 01:13:43 UTC 2011
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> The storage world is not limited to spinning hardware. Take a 512MB
> CF, put it in a soekris box, and you got an embedded system capable of
> doing a whole bunch of stuff.
> Now, FreeBSD may no longer want to target such "niche" usage.
Sure we do!
See nanobsd.sh and
But the point is, if you are running an embedded system, it is almost
certainly in your best interest to tune it a bit, to reduce
disk/power/memory usage -- the default install should not feel too
constrained by the limits of embedded systems.
>> If you have hardware of that nature, you are almost certainly going to want
>> to customize other aspects of the system (and if it's an under-provisioned
>> system, are you really going to be doing this customization in-place?), at
>> which point removing the extra stuff is minimal extra work. If a developer
>> has to ask a user to do something (e.g. compile) in order to debug
>> something, there is a huge hit in the response rate; having the symbols
>> available in the general case can be helpful.
> Then why don't you provide symbols for the whole system, including
> binaries and libraries ? At least be consistent in your argument...
> And, yes, I have patches for that.
Not really my argument; chance and POLA, really.
But that's not my call to make. (Are the patches public/in a PR?)
More information about the freebsd-current