On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:12:19PM -0700, Matt Ranon wrote:
> However, our reasons for Kcli are:
> 1) Our devices ship with no user space, and we want the development
> environment to be as close as possible to the final product.
I hope that means your devices have full source code available
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:12:19PM -0700, Matt Ranon wrote:
However, our reasons for Kcli are:
1) Our devices ship with no user space, and we want the development
environment to be as close as possible to the final product.
I hope that means your devices have full source code available under
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 02:36:48PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Satyam Sharma schrieb:
> > You might have your reasons for being so anxious to avoid any
> > userspace at all, but quoting famous words, continuing to maintain
> > Kcli out-of-tree could soon turn out to be an act for
> >
Satyam Sharma schrieb:
> You might have your reasons for being so anxious to avoid any
> userspace at all, but quoting famous words, continuing to maintain
> Kcli out-of-tree could soon turn out to be an act for
> self-flagellation for you :-)
OTOH, considering certain recent comments on this
Satyam Sharma schrieb:
You might have your reasons for being so anxious to avoid any
userspace at all, but quoting famous words, continuing to maintain
Kcli out-of-tree could soon turn out to be an act for
self-flagellation for you :-)
OTOH, considering certain recent comments on this
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 02:36:48PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Satyam Sharma schrieb:
You might have your reasons for being so anxious to avoid any
userspace at all, but quoting famous words, continuing to maintain
Kcli out-of-tree could soon turn out to be an act for
self-flagellation
Hi Matt,
On 4/24/07, Matt Ranon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The obvious question is: what's _wrong_ with doing all this in some
> cut-down userspace environment like busybox? Why is this stuff better?
>
> Obviously some embedded developers have considered that option and
> have rejected it.
> (text reformatted to less than 80 cols. Please, we'll get along a lot
> better if you don't send 1000-column emails)
Sorry. I am afraid we are from a different background, and so very
poorly versed in these things. My email client does not seem
to have an option to tell it to format in 80
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Ranon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
(text reformatted to less than 80 cols. Please, we'll get along a lot
better if you don't send 1000-column emails)
> The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel
> command line interface.
Matt Ranon wrote:
The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel command line interface. Kcli is intended for a special class of embedded Linux applications. The Linux kernel has become the defacto standard OS for embedded applications. This means that Linux is getting bent
The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel command
line interface. Kcli is intended for a special class of embedded Linux
applications. The Linux kernel has become the defacto standard OS for embedded
applications. This means that Linux is getting bent in some ways
The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel command
line interface. Kcli is intended for a special class of embedded Linux
applications. The Linux kernel has become the defacto standard OS for embedded
applications. This means that Linux is getting bent in some ways
Matt Ranon wrote:
The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel command line interface. Kcli is intended for a special class of embedded Linux applications. The Linux kernel has become the defacto standard OS for embedded applications. This means that Linux is getting bent
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Ranon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(text reformatted to less than 80 cols. Please, we'll get along a lot
better if you don't send 1000-column emails)
The Jem team is pleased to announce the release of Kcli, an in-kernel
command line interface. Kcli
(text reformatted to less than 80 cols. Please, we'll get along a lot
better if you don't send 1000-column emails)
Sorry. I am afraid we are from a different background, and so very
poorly versed in these things. My email client does not seem
to have an option to tell it to format in 80 cols.
Hi Matt,
On 4/24/07, Matt Ranon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The obvious question is: what's _wrong_ with doing all this in some
cut-down userspace environment like busybox? Why is this stuff better?
Obviously some embedded developers have considered that option and
have rejected it. But we
16 matches
Mail list logo
