cg at cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
 > >Of course, the same end could be achieved with Linux or even
SqueakNOS,
> >but it would be a lot more work to get to that point.  
> >
> Why would it be more work with Linux? It sports accelerated device drivers in
> the kernel, and putting a barebones X server between the kernel and Squeak is
> easy'nuff. There are a couple of Linux distros nowadays that emphasize 'get
> up'n'running quickly', meaning that you can plunk a ready-to-run CD in mostly
> any modern (PCI, etcetera) PC; stealing the bottom layers and starting Squeak
> would probably be a one-day job.

It would be less work to get a purely functional for Squeak system, very
small, but with everything you need.  Maybe it's possible, but you get
with this WinCE x86 image a fully functional browser w/ JavaScript and
128 bit SSL, a bunch of 'office' apps, PIM apps, drivers and windowing
system in about 16 MB.  Maybe it can be done in Linux, but it would be
more work than just having this 16 MB WinCE image.  My Opera 5 install
on my Linux/PPC iBook is 8 MB, and mozilla install - sans Java mind you-
is 40 MB.  You could use a tiny browser like dillo with such a
tiny-squeak-linux install, but at that point, you may as well just use
Scamper.  Such a setup, WinCE based, would be especially good on an
older machine, p100 with a 600 MB drive or something.

That said, I'm a pragmatic person, not an idealogical one about such
things.  If it works, I'll use it.  Which is why I love Squeak.

Regards,
Aaron