If you want an embedded system you could also go for a micro-controller from
the MCS51 family. It is time you UNIX bunnies realised that there is more
to the world that UNIX. If it wasn't for small mocro-controllers we would
not have a lot of the moderm electronic equipment.
A small OS is very important to the rest of the world. In a lot on cases
even Elks is to big to fit in the space provided. EG 8192 bytes of code
space and 256 bytes of RAM.
STOP SLAGGING OFF AT ELKS IF YOU NOT LIKE IT GO SOME WHERE ELSE.....
Rod
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Given
Sent: Friday, 12 February 1999 00:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel fission was: msdos/umsdos support?
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Steve Drake wrote:
>
>> The reason I can see for ELKS is what first lead me to take an interest
>> in it -- the "E" in ELKS stands for "Embeddable."
>
>For those looking for a free, open source, embeddable OS, check out:
>
>http://www.cygnus.com/ecos/
>
>It does require a 32-bit (or 64-bit) processor, but AFAIK that's not a big
>deal for real embedded projects.
If you want an embedded system, you do *not* go for an Intel processor. You
particularly don't go for a 16-bit Intel processor.
They're too expensive, don't have enough oomph, require far too much glue,
and require strange software. If you want an embedded system, you buy an
off-the-shelf ARM or M-Core or SH based processor which consists of one chip
with a thousand-and-one peripherals built in. And you don't run ELKS on it;
you run a proprietry RTOS like eCos or vxWorks or Elate or something.
The reasons for ELKS are primarily for fun and secondly to get useful work
out of old hardware *we already have*. If you start having to pay money for
the hardware, it no longer becomes worth it.
I don't have a problem with this.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+
| Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | FNORD
| Play: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
