...run the Linux kernel, bash, and a bunch of terminal programs (nano, w3m, gcc, things like that)? I know about motherboards with the pico-ITX form factor, but I want to see if running Linux off something even smaller is possible.
>>3
netbsd requires an MMU.
uclinux doesn't.
>>3 Linux runs on more architectures than NetBSD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD#Portability
The article is somewhat sensationalist by wiki-standards; The userland between NetBSD and GNU/Linux is about equivalent, with the GNU-variants being better in all practical respects.
The only practical reason to use NetBSD is if you hate freedom or penguins.
something like a nintendo ds?
google "dslinux"
several PDAs can run uclinux.
Search for ethernut, there are also other pre-made made cards like that. Or you could but atmel chipset and build your own device.
Depends what you want to do with it.
> with the GNU-variants being better in all practical respects.
except size, which can be very important if you don't have much memory.
but in those cases you'd be better off using busybox anyway.
> The only practical reason to use NetBSD is if you hate freedom or penguins.
NetBSD is licensed under a free license. Linux is not.
>>1
There's also of course these:
http://www.gumstix.com/
Something like this would be even smaller I guess, but it's not a usable system by itself. (System on Chip)
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9647663764.html
> Linux runs on more architectures than NetBSD
Or rather, you can get some form or derivative of the Linux kernel running on more architectures, with one userland or another. With NetBSD, you get a system built from the official source tree, no patches, running. Of course, if a system vendor ships a Linux based OS image and it's good for what you want to do, no problem.
> the GNU-variants being better in all practical respects
Haha, no. It's mostly a matter of preference (and licensing).
> The only practical reason to use NetBSD is if you hate freedom or penguins.
Or if your company is not OK with the terms of the GPL and want to make private modifications. Or if you want something that is easy to port (as opposed to already ported). Or if you want to use the same driver source across multiple architectures. ...
Basically, it comes down to what it is that you want to do. Just saying "A is better than B" with no context is stupid.
Of course, QNX is way better than either for small systems.
>Or if your company is not OK with the terms of the GPL and want to make private modifications.
Jesus Christ. If your modifications are private you don't have to release the source. You might as well say they don't want to use GPL because they want to sell it.
>>10
is a wanker