> Actually, I think that NanoBSD is quite nice, it may not be so well > documented (if that's what you meant) > however the final product is rock-solid stable (much like FreeBSD > itself)
i'd heard about nanobsd, picobsd & tinybsd, but had yet to use/deploy any of them. at the moment, i'm wondering about the wisdom of building 'even/just' nanobsd ON a soekris box -- might take awhile. that's simply in comparison to the challenges of remote boot via tftp/nfs ... for a local/occasional system, having a flash-based solution might well be handy; for remote systems that may number in the hundreds, a net-based solution may be more straightforward to administer. --Tenzen --Tenzen _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
