Baslinux mailing list

[baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Message from Steven
> ===================
> sam wrote:
> > honest question... why 2.2 instead of 2.4?
>
> The 2.2 kernel has a significantly smaller footprint
> than the 2.4 kernel.  Actually, the 2.2 kernel is
> not as old as it sounds.  2.2.26 came out a couple
> of years ago and has a number of features back-ported
> from 2.4 development

Any chance they will successfully backport USB storage?

Some modules no longer compile with 2.2 or even 2.4. Such as 
svgalib_helper.  The author is trying to figure out why 2.4 won't work for 
me.

....

> To get the most out of old, low-RAM computers, you
> need slim kernels, slim libraries and slim executables.
> That's what BasicLinux is:  2.2.26 kernel, libc5
> library and busybox binaries.  All are significantly
> smaller than what you find on a mainstream distribution.
>
> Cheers,
> Steven


So why has busybox stopped supporting older smaller kernels?  Blueflops 
2.6 kernel is 'only' 1MB (plus modules).  BL3 busybox uclibc-static about 
400K.

The latest Kernel Build HOWTO recommends 400MB free space for building the 
kernel in (not counting source code itself) and says you need 4MB to 40MB 
for the kernel and modules, and that 4MB kernels are practically useless.

Busybox claims to be for small or embedded systems with limited 
resources.  How much RAM do embedded systems have?

Sindi