4 ms·

> 2.11BSD, not OpenBSD, so the attack surface/weak links are mostly unknown for this majorly obscure kernel configuration/port. They're actually probably prett

by cat199 8y ago

> 2.11BSD, not OpenBSD, so the attack surface/weak links are mostly unknown for this majorly obscure kernel configuration/port. They're actually probably pretty well known for most things, just buried under decades of literature and commits. Starting off with a 4BSD would probably be better though since 32bit vax bsd unix got a lot more traction (and more direct code lineage to the modern ports). But yes, if going 32bit with enough ram, might as well just port OpenBSD/NetBSD and get on with it.

loeg 8y ago
Any idea what the minimum RAM requirements of something like Open or NetBSD is? I know that modern FreeBSD can boot to a single user process with something like 32M RAM on 32-bit systems with a very stripped down kernel configuration. 64M gives a little more breathing room. But those are both many orders of magnitude larger than 128kB. It wouldn't surprise me if OBSD or NBSD can fit in a little less RAM, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they still need at least a handful of MB, i.e., 32-64x Retro's 128 kB.
- nils-m-holm 8y ago
  > I know that modern FreeBSD can bootI to a single user process with something like 32M RAM on 32-bit systems with a very stripped down kernel configuration. Wow! My first BSD box (386BSD) had 8 megabytes of RAM and that was plenty! You could even compile moderately large programs without any swapping. But then, feeping creaturism has always been a BSD tradition! :)
  - loeg 8y ago
    > But then, feeping creaturism has always been a BSD tradition! :) In general, living software adapts to the constraints of the hardware developers use and care about. The most visible case of this is probably web browsers (and web sites). If BSD developers were interested in a minimal memory configuration, they could make it happen. It just hasn't been anyone's priority, and machines have many orders of magnitude more RAM today than they did in ~1992.
    - nils-m-holm 8y ago
      My comment was not intended as criticism, but merely as an "oh, look how times have changed!". If anything, it was intended as an expression of affection. I have used BSD ever since as my only OS. That being said, software development in general is in a desolate state these days with unnecessary layers of abstraction and bloat all over the place. The featurism of ancient BSD looks pretty harmless today.

by cat199 8y ago

loeg 8y ago

Any idea what the minimum RAM requirements of something like Open or NetBSD is? I know that modern FreeBSD can boot to a single user process with something like 32M RAM on 32-bit systems with a very stripped down kernel configuration. 64M gives a little more breathing room. But those are both many orders of magnitude larger than 128kB. It wouldn't surprise me if OBSD or NBSD can fit in a little less RAM, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they still need at least a handful of MB, i.e., 32-64x Retro's 128 kB.

nils-m-holm 8y ago
> I know that modern FreeBSD can bootI to a single user process with something like 32M RAM on 32-bit systems with a very stripped down kernel configuration. Wow! My first BSD box (386BSD) had 8 megabytes of RAM and that was plenty! You could even compile moderately large programs without any swapping. But then, feeping creaturism has always been a BSD tradition! :)
- loeg 8y ago
  > But then, feeping creaturism has always been a BSD tradition! :) In general, living software adapts to the constraints of the hardware developers use and care about. The most visible case of this is probably web browsers (and web sites). If BSD developers were interested in a minimal memory configuration, they could make it happen. It just hasn't been anyone's priority, and machines have many orders of magnitude more RAM today than they did in ~1992.
  - nils-m-holm 8y ago
    My comment was not intended as criticism, but merely as an "oh, look how times have changed!". If anything, it was intended as an expression of affection. I have used BSD ever since as my only OS. That being said, software development in general is in a desolate state these days with unnecessary layers of abstraction and bloat all over the place. The featurism of ancient BSD looks pretty harmless today.