? about kernel size..

[John Clark]

On Mar 8, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Brad Walker <bwalker at musings.com> wrote:

> For example, we have a requirement to implement SSL/TLS, BTLE, and ftp on a
> microkernel. By the time this is done, it will be worthwhile to look at
> alternatives. Not to mention, the needs just keep coming.
> 
> -brad w.

At which point I become very vociferous in arguing against using a process so limited that it can’t run a BSD/Linux derivative.

This sort of happened with the recent brush with the 8051… The Boss wanted to have the 8051 do some TCP/IP with some sort of
Ethernet interface that was available from the company that made the 8051…

At which point I found a $15 AP based on MIPS/Atheros SoC, and provided not only TCP/IP but also a local hotspot for control/monitoring, ethernet hub, mini http server, etc.

If someone wanted to reduce cost from $15 they could have gotten the Eval package and gotten the design to a manufacturing house for much less as well…
Of course they would talking about volumes many times greater than 100s…

The 8051 controller was still in there, but the ‘fancy’ stuff was on a board that could handle ‘fancy’ stuff without making the project 2-3 years worth of development on a minimal
processor platform.

Another aspect of the ‘minimal system’ that is required to do ‘fancy’ stuff, is that often the TCP/IP implementation is sort of ‘half-baked’ and can introduce problems which go
far beyond just not accessing the device… it could cause problems for the entire network, and require much debugging to solve… or even understand what’s going on…

This may be ok if the devices are located in conveniently accessible locations… but if one has to go to a remote location via helicopter or pack in equipment with mules…
such issues become bigger than the cost savings of some minimal solution.

John Clark.