From: Tom Walsh (tom@cyberiansoftware.com)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2001 - 22:15:48 EST
Zhang Hong-W17904 wrote: > > > > So, what about the uClinux 2.4.X on these issues? > Guess what... You lose, the same problems exist for the 2.4 kernel in any processor situation in which an MMU is not available. Unless... You wish to write copious amounts of code to simulate the operation of an MMU! Get real people! This is not mainstream computing shrunk down to the molecular level, this is embedded systems. Doesn't anyone know what an embedded system is anymore? Granted that the lines between the old 8/16 bit hardware and the current 32 bit processors is becoming blurred, but for the stuff that I do, having to not code my own malloc(), or exec(), is light years away from the alternative: rolling my own proprietary O/S. ... TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant 'www.openhardware.net', 'www.cyberiansoftware.com' "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." This message resent by the uclinux-dev@uclinux.org list server http://www.uClinux.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 13:19:28 EDT