On 03/04/17 07:41, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> No PTYs seems like a big limitation. This means no sshd?
> Again, my ultimate system target is in the sub-megabyte of RAM.  I 
> really doubt you'll be able to fit an SSH server in there even if PTYs 
> were supported, unless sshd (or dropbear) can be made really tiny. 
> Otherwise you most probably have sufficient resources to run the regular 
> TTY code.

Are we talking small microcontrollers here?  The smallest machine in
terms of RAM I ever recall running Linux on was a 386SX/25 MHz with 4MB
RAM, and that had a MMU.

I recall Slackware requiring that you booted with a mounted floppy (no
ramdisk) and possibly even required that you had a second floppy drive
formatted as swap so you'd be able to get through the install without
oomkiller knocking on your door.

The same machine could also "run" Windows 95.  When I say "run", it was
more like a slow crawl.  Bull sharks washed onto land by flood waters
run faster.

Sub-megabyte system support is a noble goal, but I'm wondering how
practical such systems would be, and whether an embedded real-time
kernel might be a better choice than Linux on such systems.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.