[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:16:03 +0000 > "Steve Lee" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> why 'need'? >> Can't you just ignore the extra? > > How can I promote a small distribution that is targetted at devices > that have less than 32Mb of total storage, by giving out 1Gb media???? You're fighting a losing battle here. I build "embedded" systems based on Linux that boot off a Flash IDE device. I started with 32MB units. These days the "sweet spot" is 256MB. Won't be long before it's double that. > Some devices will need the USB stick formatted with filesystems that > are only sane on small flash storage (and get incredibly wasteful over > 128Mb) because the contents of the stick need to be addressable from > the bootloader. Many bootloaders have extremely limited opinions of > what kind of filesystems it can boot. VFAT isn't a safe choice either. > > 1Gb is only suitable as a multi-architecture installer but as each > installer is less than 25Mb and each may require different filesystems, > it probably isn't worth doing. > > It just doesn't add up - except for the larger devices that can use > "normal" bootloaders like grub and which don't need this kind of > support in the first place. I use Lilo FWIW. Gordon -- www.drogon.net -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html