[HN Gopher] Running Debian on a 32MB RAM Single Core ARM SBC
___________________________________________________________________
Running Debian on a 32MB RAM Single Core ARM SBC
Author : jamesmd
Score : 164 points
Date : 2021-01-01 13:55 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.jmdawson.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.jmdawson.co.uk)
| [deleted]
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Just a few days ago I was trying to cut down the configuration
| for the current Linux kernel so I could boot it on a circa 2001
| PC/104 SBC with 32 MiB of SDRAM. The processor is an AMD Elan
| SC520, which is a 133 MHz AM5x86 core and about on par with a 75
| MHz Pentium. Sadly the memory is not expandable.
|
| Getting a buildroot based system to work was fairly easy starting
| with "make tinyconfig" for the kernel. IDE was a real hangup
| because there really isn't an IDE controller, it's a legacy IDE
| interface with no DMA. Disk IO is abysmally slow. Found that
| libata has experimental support for legacy IDE, rather than use
| the old IDE drivers. So I've managed to not select any deprecated
| kernel options.
|
| Booting a current Gentoo stage3 with networking was a major
| challenge though. Still haven't managed to get IPv6 and all of
| the standard netfilter modules before the kernel hangs
| mysteriously between finishing self extract and producing any
| logs.
|
| I also haven't managed to get ZONE_DMA support working for legacy
| DMA on ISA (for the PC/104 bus) without it using too much of the
| remaining DMA'able memory to load the Intel 82559 ethernet driver
| (e100.ko).
|
| It's rather hilarious seeing a 5.10 Linux kernel complaining that
| it can't find a 256 KiB contiguous region of physical ram.
|
| Buildroot boots in a matter of seconds on it, Gentoo takes a few
| minutes.
| anthk wrote:
| Try Minix3 or NetBSD.
| dekhn wrote:
| I ran TAMU Linux on a 486 with 4MB RAM in 1994. It wasn't much
| fun- you could start X windows, and emacs, but if you tried to
| compile with g++ at the same time it would page.
|
| I spent $250 of my hard-earned money to buy an 8MB upgrade, and
| ultimately upgraded that machine to 32MB, at which point it
| "flew"- no paging during development.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| I had a 4MB machine and an extra 1MB stick. I didn't know how
| to install it so I taped it the case out of spite against
| technology. _Plus ca change..._
| derefr wrote:
| That would be about the era when people who weren't so keen on
| hardware upgrades as a solution to their problem were
| denouncing Emacs for its memory usage, and encouraging people
| to "stick to" vi if they wanted a performant development
| system.
|
| Imagine denouncing Emacs for its runtime size today, relative
| to the bloat that is VS Code or IntelliJ :)
| indymike wrote:
| I never had any problems with emacs on my low end 90Mhz
| Pentium with 8MB of RAM, as long as I stuck to -nox.
| dekhn wrote:
| yes, I should have mentioned: I was using the X windows
| version of emacs (at the time, I thought that was a Really
| Cool Thing- now, I use text emacs in tmux). I think it has
| a much larger footprint.
| dekhn wrote:
| I had already bought into the emacs ecosystem- it ran fine on
| the micros that I had been using previously.
|
| For most work programming I still use emacs 20+ years later
| but that's because of muscle memory. For hobby projects I use
| VS Code. It runs just fine on my 32-core, 64GB RAM desktop :)
| anthk wrote:
| There were lightweight Emacs clones, to be honest. And
| joe/jed.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| It's ironic that I still get lag with my vim setup running on
| the latest MacBook Pro today but ran a 486 and was able to
| write code back then with about the same or better
| responsiveness. Biggest issue seems syntax checking and code
| folding on files over 3000 lines long. Yes I know long files
| aren't ideal but also for the specific project I'm currently
| working on it's somewhat better than a thousand 3 line files.
| ploxiln wrote:
| In my experience, it's just some particular syntaxes that
| vim is slow to process - large XML/HTML files in
| particular. But just ":synax off" when you want
| responsiveness more than you want colors :)
| retrac wrote:
| Emacs? Eight megabytes and constantly swapping.
|
| Even today editor bloat is real. On my netbook VSCode is
| noticeably laggy sometimes, and it wouldn't take too much
| more to start paging out the editor! It amazes me that we
| still can't do instantly responsive editors. Even my dinky
| notebook still has a gigabyte of RAM and can do a billion
| integer operations a second. But VSCode can't show text
| instantly. I guess I'll stick with vi!
| burlesona wrote:
| Just for what it's worth, I've never had any lag, hanging,
| stuttering, etc. with Sublime Text 3. It's very fast.
| simongr3dal wrote:
| It is fast and I find myself going between the two. But
| intellisense and the language plugins that Microsoft
| makes are just so much better than what Sublime Text
| offers.
| flatiron wrote:
| I used a 486 66dx2 until 2001 when I went to college. FreeBSD
| was by far and away the winner on that thing. Had 20 megs of
| RAM and a 2.2 gig hard drive. Ran X and WordPerfect and
| Netscape in Linux compatibility better than natively in
| Slackware. Got me through high school with no problems (had to
| buy an external modem as the one it came with was a winmodem)
| No clue the current state of things though.
| anthk wrote:
| You could browse the web perfectly back in the day, and
| Nethack ran like a charm, too :).
| dleslie wrote:
| The web loaded and rendered faster because Javascript was
| used sparingly, if it was used at all. XMLHTTPRequest
| didn't become a thing until 1999 and didn't catch fire
| until later, and so async requests just didn't happen.
|
| Yeah, I miss the static web.
| [deleted]
| rwmj wrote:
| One dream project I have is to build a CM-5 like machine from
| hundreds of cheap units like this. Unfortunately this one seems
| to lack fast I/O. Could probably do something with the I2C
| connections but they would be very slow.
|
| (Before anyone jumps in with "why don't you use a desktop
| machine, it'll be faster", this is for fun, not a practical
| project.)
| Nursie wrote:
| OrangePi zero is pretty cheap (at around the $10 mark), has
| 256MB RAM, 4x 1.2GHz cores, microsd slot and 100M
| ethernet/built-in wifi.
|
| I have one I used to build a security cam system. Pretty neat
| little board.
| seg_lol wrote:
| Wait, this is also my dream!
|
| Mine is more about using FPGAs for the communication fabric and
| RISC-V for processing, but similar.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| It apparently supports SDIO 2.0[1] and with that apparently
| WiFi/Ethernet. I assume one would have to add SPI Flash and
| boot off that.
|
| Though yeah, I doubt it would be very fast regardless, but it's
| something.
|
| edit: I assume you're aware of the OTG port.
|
| [1]: https://linux-sunxi.org/F1C100s (datasheet)
| jamesmd wrote:
| The board already has spi flash but it's only 8 or 16mb.
| Enough for buildroot or maybe openwrt but Debian ain't going
| to fit in there.
| FlyMoreRockets wrote:
| Not Debian, but there are lots of Linux distros pared down
| to fit on a single floppy disk. They will run just fine
| within that amount of RAM.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20161109230651/https://bengross
| ....
| dgfitz wrote:
| Check these out:
|
| http://tinycorelinux.net/
|
| https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page
| magicalhippo wrote:
| The bigger brother, so to speak, the LicheePi Zero apparently
| has 100M Ethernet PHY included[1].
|
| It's about twice the price though, at least from the brief
| look[2] I had.
|
| [1]: https://licheepizero.us/licheepi-zero-hardware-data
|
| [2]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001007403603.html
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| There are some pretty nice cluster cases out there. This one
| that fits 7 of the SOPINE compute module[1] using their
| clusterboard[2] is neat:
| https://www.c4labs.com/product/presale-pine64-cluster-case-p...
|
| [1] https://www.pine64.org/sopine/
|
| [2] https://www.pine64.org/clusterboard/
| rwmj wrote:
| I have the Turing Pi 1, 7 RPi CM3 nodes. And it's fine. But
| next I want to really move to a "huge" cluster, say 100+
| nodes.
|
| The reason is that with 7 nodes I find I'm still logging into
| each Raspberry Pi and configuring it by hand. It's a bad
| habit for sure. With 100 nodes, there's no way I could
| possibly do that, forcing me to write software to control the
| nodes automatically.
| generalizations wrote:
| I wonder if there's a sweet spot of price and speed (1-4gb ram
| units?) where such a device would actually be competitive on
| performance and price.
| rwmj wrote:
| Communication overhead is the enemy of these highly parallel
| machines. The Connection Machines had many CPUs, but the
| unsung hero was the hypercube of connections between them
| [the clue is in the name]. According to Wikipedia it was a 12
| dimension hypercube so every node had 12 high speed point-to-
| point I/O channels to adjacent nodes, which must have been a
| nightmare to implement and a nightmare to design software
| for. The cost of a CM-5 (Wikipedia again says $25 million)
| must have mostly been for this very specialised network.
|
| It's hard to imagine this could have been competitive with a
| $25 million pile of beige PC boxes from the same era, but the
| PCs would have been starved of I/O (10 Mbps shared thick
| ethernet anyone?) so only applications which don't need much
| I/O between the nodes would be possible.
|
| A "modern" CM-5 would ironically look much more like the pile
| of beige PCs, because it will have much less I/O -- these
| cheap chips only seem to have at most one or two fast
| channels (eg. ethernet and SDIO). There's no way to build
| these into a hypercube. It will be constantly limited by
| bandwidth and contention addressing other nodes in the
| cluster.
|
| So I'd only build it for fun, not for practicality :-)
| stan_rogers wrote:
| SpiNNaker[0] is a species of that, with multi-dimensional
| connections in a toroidal surface configuration. It's ARM-
| based, largely because the chief developer/project head is
| Steve Furber. Along with interviews concerning the BBC
| Micro and ARM, Computerphile did a video with Furber
| concerning SPiNNaker[1].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpiNNaker [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e06C-yUwlc
| generalizations wrote:
| I'm surprised it was worthwhile to build, since the whole
| thing has only 7TB of ram. I guess the total memory
| bandwidth is really good.
| rwmj wrote:
| Yes SpiNNaker looks very cool, also of course the BBC
| Micro connection as you say. I do wonder what the network
| architecture is, so now I'm going to have to watch that
| video you posted :-)
|
| Edit: It's a toroid, which seems an unusual choice
| (because 2D) for something that's meant to simulate a
| brain. I wonder if a simple 3D cubic connection network
| would have been possible by adding more links between
| physically adjacent boards.
| generalizations wrote:
| I've noticed that a lot of those small arm chips are
| designed for external ram. I wonder if physically shared
| ram could overcome the I/O limitation.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I'm not sure what transfer rates you're looking for but modern
| SPI slaves can do > 120 MHz (roughly 15 MB/sec); if you give it
| two more pins you can do 66 MB/s (bytes, not bits) via quad spi
| (cf the datasheet for this very run-of-the-mill NOR flash that
| can do SPI, Dual SPI, and Quad SPI [0]). Of course that's a
| unidirectional transfer rate - you won't be able to
| simultaneously both send and receive at that rate, but you can
| alternate symmetrically between the two.
|
| You won't be able to bitbang at those speeds, so you'll
| definitely have to drop down a layer in your stack/abstractions
| but since you mentioned I2C I figured you'd probably be OK
| considering this.
|
| [0]: https://www.winbond.com/resource-
| files/W25Q128JW_DTR%20RevD%...
| locusofself wrote:
| My first computer was a Pentium 120mhz with 16 MB of ram :)
| pjmlp wrote:
| Slackware 2.0, Pentium 166 MHz with 8 MB RAM and 256 MB HDD,
| running fvwm.
|
| Progress.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I year ago, I got my ~first computer, a Pentium 2, to run the
| latest x86 Debian release with minimal effort. Half of what made
| it possible was that the P2 was the second chip to have 686
| instructions, and that's the oldest supported target for Debian.
| It didn't hurt that the motherboard's 440BX chipset is popular
| with VMs, and the board had a USB port, so in many ways, it looks
| modern.
| anthk wrote:
| >It didn't hurt that the motherboard's 440BX chipset is popular
| with VMs
|
| Bochs has that among i440FX :)
|
| Still, I can't emulate some spin-o-rama (Google Street View
| like) games fast enough under w95 on my AMD Turion...
| mz23 wrote:
| Debian on less RAM would be difficult, I guess ?
| incanus77 wrote:
| I currently have BasicLinux (http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/)
| running on a 386SX with 8MB RAM. Last remaining thing I'm still
| puzzling over is getting its 10Mbit Ethernet card working.
| jbuzbee wrote:
| You knew this was coming ;-) Back in 1993 I had SLS Linux
| running on a 386SX with 4MB of RAM. And that included X11 and
| gcc so I could compile my own kernels!
| guenthert wrote:
| (almost) same here. Had the DX though and quickly upgraded to
| 8MiB (by adding 36 RAM chips in DIP). Still when compiling
| the kernel (took about 20m, iirc), I left X11. Swapping
| wasn't that much fun using a single 65MB RLL(!) drive.
| rwmj wrote:
| What's the problem with the ethernet card? I'm guessing Linux
| has deprecated/removed the driver for it? Also I'm quite
| surprised that Linux still works on a 386SX, because support
| for 386 was removed some time ago
| (https://lwn.net/Articles/527396/).
| incanus77 wrote:
| Right, this was the first problem: "i386" distros actually
| pretty much all went 486+ some years back. So that severely
| limits the ecosystem. While you can always go back in the
| archive and get a bare kernel, I wanted a full system with
| init, package management, etc.
|
| The card is (unsurprisingly) an ISA slot, an Intel
| EtherExpress 16. I forget exactly where I was with it when
| last I poked at this earlier this year, but the promising
| thing is I have it worked in MS-DOS 6.22 without issue. There
| are some utilities from Intel that I found that write EEPROM
| on the card to setup its IRQ and all of that, which is how I
| got it working in DOS.
|
| Perhaps I'll take another swing at it and document more
| precisely what the issues are and what I've tried so far. I
| wrote up the acquisition, repair, and resuscitation of the
| machine on a series of posts on my blog under "Project 386"
| beginning with
| https://justinmiller.io/posts/2020/04/26/project-386-part-1/
| so I have intentions of adding some more posts.
| npongratz wrote:
| Just wanted to say that your Project 386 posts are
| _fantastic_! Thank you so much for writing them up! I
| really enjoyed reading them. I was so happy you got it
| running, and seriously impressed with your troubleshooting
| and analysis of all system components, and the eventual fix
| of the motherboard traces.
| meekrohprocess wrote:
| This might be a good time to mention Jay Carlson's excellent "So
| you want to build an embedded Linux system?" article:
|
| https://jaycarlson.net/embedded-linux/
|
| It's been discussed here before, but it's an impressive reminder
| of what an individual can accomplish with modern small-batch PCB
| manufacturing.
|
| It also goes a long way to make large-pitch BGA devices and high-
| speed signal design seem less intimidating to newcomers.
| Definitely worth a read if you're interested in these kinds of
| devices.
|
| Also, the Lichee Nano is one of the only freely-available
| English-language reference designs for the Allwinner FIC100s
| processor, which is nice.
| bitwize wrote:
| My first Debian system had 32 MiB of RAM or so.
| snvzz wrote:
| Netbsd is often a better fit for the older or more resource
| constrained machines.
| loeg wrote:
| There is a small group of folks who try to keep a FreeBSD
| configuration alive that fits on these tiny 16-32M machines as
| well: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-wifi-build .
|
| E.g., this hardware has 16MB of RAM and 4MB of flash:
| https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-wifi-build/blob/master/bu...
|
| 32MB RAM: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-wifi-
| build/blob/master/bu...
| jamesmd wrote:
| I agree, or even something like openwrt. This was just to see
| if it could be done, it's not the most practical OS for the
| hardware but it runs pretty well!
| slezyr wrote:
| OpenWRT no longer supports devices with the 4MB ROM or 32MB
| RAM
| slacka wrote:
| Yeah, I encountered this. Repurposed my Netgear WNR1000 v2
| with OpenWrt to act as a bridge to connect wired devices to
| my network. While it has served this role flawlessly for 5+
| years, it's frozen in time running an old kernel. The
| write-up as to why they had to drop support is a good read.
| [1]
|
| [1] https://openwrt.org/supported_devices/432_warning
| anthk wrote:
| >OpenWRT no longer supports devices with the 4MB ROM or
| 32MB RAM
|
| So no new zipit z2 port? I doudbt it...
| pantalaimon wrote:
| i doubt NetBSD has drivers for this SoC
| snvzz wrote:
| It supports (and I've run it on) some allwinner families.
| Apparently not this device, as far as I can tell.
|
| https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/evbarm/allwinner/
| jamesmd wrote:
| It doesn't, it's Linux only for now. Unless someone builds
| uboot for bsd. Even then there would be a huge amount of work
| to do to get it running stable.
| davidw wrote:
| My first Linux machine had 4MB and ran Slackware
| slim wrote:
| same here it was a 486 and linux kernel was 0.9 (it was buggy)
| rwmj wrote:
| 5MB and it ran SLS! I even managed to run X11 and emacs (xemacs
| I think?), although it was very much a matter of either running
| X11+emacs _or_ compiling but not both.
| davidw wrote:
| Emacs was kind of slow on that machine, so I mostly used the
| jed editor.
| icedchai wrote:
| 3 megs RAM and SLS Linux here, around 1993. This was a 386SX
| laptop with 1 meg onboard and a 2 meg expansion. X11 barely
| ran and I didn't dare try emacs, so I had to learn vi.
| puzzlingcaptcha wrote:
| I remember running Debian on NSLU2 over a decade ago, that was
| likely similar spec (single core ARM/32MB RAM) though less
| integrated.
| jamesmd wrote:
| I remember running it on this cheap iomega NAS drive around the
| same time. Very similar specs although it had a SATA
| controller.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Corel Netwinder, single core Intel-made ARM, 2 ethernet ports
| (10 and 10/100), VGA, serial, and a 2.5" PATA disk; I think I
| splurged on the 64MB version and paid something like $800 for
| it.
|
| My nostalgia for it is tempered by knowing that a Raspberry
| Pi 4B is better in basically every single way and
| ridiculously cheaper.
| puzzlingcaptcha wrote:
| My benchmark for the cheap single-board has been the $9
| CHIP [1]. As far as I can tell nothing since was able to
| match that kind of value - 512MB RAM / 4GB MMC / wifi+BT.
| Hell, it even had a power management IC and a battery
| connector. I regret I didn't grab more of them before the
| company went defunct. If anyone knows of a spiritual
| successor please share.
|
| https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1598272670/chip-the-
| wor...
| pantalaimon wrote:
| The only bummer is missing upstream support. Although
| right now the only thing missing seems to be the NAND.
|
| https://linux-sunxi.org/NextThingCo_CHIP
|
| https://linux-sunxi.org/MTD_Driver#Challenges
| omneity wrote:
| If anyone is interested I have 3 CHIPs in mint condition.
| Never got around to use them (I have a case of SBC
| addiction).
|
| You can write me at hi-at-nickname.xyz
| Nursie wrote:
| > As far as I can tell nothing since was able to match
| that kind of value
|
| I mentioned it upthread and I don't want to look like I'm
| shilling but ... the Orange Pi zero board has 256M or
| 512M of ram, 4 cores, ethernet, wifi and all sorts of
| other stuff, for about $10. You have to provide storage
| though, and while it does have a graphics capability you
| need an expansion board (another $2) to use it.
| puzzlingcaptcha wrote:
| Thanks, this does indeed look compelling. The onboard
| ethernet, wifi antenna connector, and a regular-sized USB
| are all pluses too.
| rwmj wrote:
| The Orange Pi looks good, but it's a shame they have non-
| standard POE which seems to require weird hacks to make
| it work
| (https://parglescouk.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/getting-
| the-ora...). Having a single wire to each board would be
| very compelling if it could be more standard.
| Nursie wrote:
| Yeah, must admit I didn't try the PoE, I've just used it
| with power to the MicroUSB. It is indeed a shame.
| fheld wrote:
| Not a successor but I found a seller that is still
| selling them:
|
| aliexpress.com/item/33051763438.html
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| Thanks for this!
|
| Unfortunately the shipping is "strangely" expensive.
|
| Even if I was to buy 10 CHIP they would still cost 15
| euro each with shipping included.
| Nursie wrote:
| The 'slug' was my first intro to linux on ARM too. 133 MHz
| unlockable to 266. Extra USB ports if you get your soldering
| iron out.
|
| I used to run a mailserver off one and a media box off another.
| thamer wrote:
| The first time I installed a minimal Gentoo (~2005 or so) I could
| boot to a shell with 17 MB of RAM used. This was after tuning the
| kernel to make it as small as possible and removing everything I
| didn't need, disabling all superfluous init services, etc.
|
| It's quite possible that it did use more than 17 MB temporarily
| before going back down, but I would expect that it's probably
| doable in 32 MB + swap.
|
| Configuring a minimal Linux system with Gentoo or Linux From
| Scratch is a great way to learn how things work (especially
| learning from mistakes like disabling ATA/IDE in the kernel and
| having to figure out why it no longer boots :p).
| solarkraft wrote:
| 7 MB of RAM at idle, wow.
|
| But what can it run on top of it? Dotnet? Python? Go?
|
| AFAIK even the latter has a non- negligible runtime overhead.
|
| In general I wonder if it's actually practically usable for
| common tasks one could imagine.
|
| One advantage over micro-controllers is clear, though: Dynamic
| loading/execution of binaries, which no microcontroller OS seems
| to care about (why?).
| [deleted]
| retrac wrote:
| For context, I currently have a 16 MHz 68030 machine with 24 MB
| running a recent NetBSD install, just as a lark.
|
| For simple command line things like poking around the file
| system over telnet, it feels pretty much like a contemporary
| system. It can even run the Python REPL fine, though it takes a
| good number of seconds to start up. Apache is no problem and it
| can host a website, though I imagine it would crumple with more
| than a dozen requests a minute or so. Actually, the only real
| annoyance for that kind of work is that the machine's too slow
| to authenticate SSL keys in a reasonable time, so logging in
| takes forever and you can't host an HTTPS site.
|
| Given this ARM machine is probably ~100x faster, if you're
| willing to add some swap for flexibility, I imagine it'd be
| usable for a wide variety of low-memory tasks.
| anthk wrote:
| > Actually, the only real annoyance for that kind of work is
| that the machine's too slow to authenticate SSL keys in a
| reasonable time, so logging in takes forever and you can't
| host an HTTPS site.
|
| Isn't Dillo (compiled from Mercurial) with mbedtls fast
| enough? Also, Gopher servers like sdf.org, magical.fish or
| i-logout.cz would shine on that machine. Fire up lynx and go.
| Or better, compile sacc with tcc, it will run megafast.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| Languages with garbage collection and/or tons of reflection
| (requiring memory for bookkeeping) and/or JIT (requiring memory
| for on-the-fly jitted code) would indeed be a problem due to
| the overhead of those technologies.
|
| Python is not as "bad" as dotnet and go I'd think, as most of
| python is reference counted garbage collection (with a "full"
| GC just to break up cycles) while go and dotnet use essentially
| mark-and-sweep GC strategies which require a lot of object
| moving and thus scratch space.
|
| Running a dotnet hello-world (on x86_64 linux admittedly) gives
| an RSS of 26MB, most of it mapped libraries and .net
| assemblies, some libraries shared between processes of course,
| like libc/libm/ld.so. But it also maps a ton memory for the JIT
| and the GC (including scratch space to move objects into during
| gc). With some swap, it may survive on a system with 25MB of
| free memory, but I'd think there'd be plenty of swap-thrashing
| and gc thrashing going on, making that less fun.
|
| Running a python3's hello world comes in at 10MB RSS, but a
| large part of that is the shared libraries like
| libc/libm/ld.so. With some memory-conserving programming some
| real python programs may run just fine without excess swapping.
|
| For comparison, a hello world in C maps about 1M RSS, while a
| rust one maps 2MB RSS, both times a big chunk in shared
| libraries specially libc.
| nimmer wrote:
| > Languages with garbage collection
|
| Nim uses GC by default and uses 512KB of RSS without any
| tuning.
|
| (With ARC/ORC and without libc it can run on microcontrollers
| with 1KB of RAM)
| anthk wrote:
| TCL would run for sure.
| rvr_ wrote:
| It's nice to run a common distro on such tiny resources, but
| things tend to pile very fast when you add packages because of
| long (and sometimes unneeded) dependencies chains. That's when
| more specialized solutions shine (like openwrt or buildroot).
| Kudos to the author.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-01 23:01 UTC)