RT firmwares: TCL interpreter - keep it or lose it?

Polls and the resulting discussions.

Do you wish to see the TCL interpreter in future RT firmwares?

No, I never use it / can live without it
33
89%
Yes, I need it!
4
11%
 
Total votes: 37
User avatar
Neo
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 3580
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:09 pm
Contact:

RT firmwares: TCL interpreter - keep it or lose it?

Post by Neo » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:09 pm

The RouterTech development team would like to know whether, you, the users of our firmwares, would like to keep the TCL interpreter in future firmware releases. It takes up a considerable amount of space in the router's memory - memory which could be freed up for something else (e.g. a bigger minix partition :) ). If you don't know what the TCL interpreter is then you probably don't need it ;)

We would be grateful if you could make your opinion known and vote below :)
RouterTech Team
Image
No support via PM, please ask your questions on the forum!
mstombs
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 3753
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:54 pm

Post by mstombs » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:37 pm

I tested it and got it to print "hello world", not touched it since - bash script seems to do all I have need of.
User avatar
Shotokan101
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 4772
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Post by Shotokan101 » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:25 pm

I never really intended to use it - I just thought tat it might give developers a bit more flexibility to provide additional fnctionality that we could all benefit from. :?
Jim

.....I'm Sorry But I Can't Do That Dave.....
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:37 pm

Judging from the deluge of responses (:roll:) it seems that the feature is not being used, and so it will be removed from future firmware releases. Anyone who needs it thereafter will have to stick with v2.3 ...
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
hyperair
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by hyperair » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:45 pm

Honestly I was of the opinion that TCL was a rather bad choice for a scripting language interpreter. I mean I know quite a few languages, but TCL's not one of them. In fact, I have absolutely no intention of learning TCL. So why not replace it with something more common/popular? Perhaps Perl or PHP or Python? Also I wouldn't mind if "ps" gave more options.
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:14 pm

hyperair wrote:Honestly I was of the opinion that TCL was a rather bad choice for a scripting language interpreter. I mean I know quite a few languages, but TCL's not one of them. In fact, I have absolutely no intention of learning TCL. So why not replace it with something more common/popular? Perhaps Perl or PHP or Python?
Space. If we had 256mb of flash memory instead of 4mb, I could add Perl, PHP, Python, or even a C compiler.
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:20 pm

hyperair wrote:I wouldn't mind if "ps" gave more options.
"ps" is a Busybox applet., so I am afraid no one will be getting any more options out of it. You could of course try building the full ps utility from source - but I doubt it would be worth the space that it would take out of your flash memory.
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
hyperair
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by hyperair » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:25 pm

thechief wrote:
hyperair wrote:I wouldn't mind if "ps" gave more options.
"ps" is a Busybox applet., so I am afraid no one will be getting any more options out of it. You could of course try building the full ps utility from source - but I doubt it would be worth the space that it would take out of your flash memory.
Figures. I didn't think they needed THAT much space though. Looks like they do eh?
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:41 pm

Have you tried building any of these (plus all dependencies)? You would be surprised at the space required.

PS: and 4mb is not a lot to fit a Linux distro and a host of other things into.
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
hyperair
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by hyperair » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:44 pm

Agreed. Mine's already reaching 8GB, but then again I've got GNOME and KDE4 installed. =P Not to mention Perl, Python, Apache2, among other space-consuming stuff.
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:39 pm

If you look in the "repository" package we released a few weeks ago, you will see a few examples. "Microperl" for example compiles to circa 1.5mb. So does openvpn. So even with the best will in the world, it is impossible to add openvpn or microperl to a firmware - how much less a full blown perl (or python, or php). Bash is 1mb, etc., etc.
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
User avatar
Neo
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 3580
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:09 pm
Contact:

Post by Neo » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:09 pm

thechief wrote:If you look in the "repository" package we released a few weeks ago, you will see a few examples.
Here's the link for anyone interested: viewtopic.php?t=1602 :)
RouterTech Team
Image
No support via PM, please ask your questions on the forum!
User avatar
jimp
Novice
Novice
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:02 pm

I don't know if I'm too late to suggest this but...

Post by jimp » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:38 pm

What I would like to see instead of TCL is a small tftp server set up to serve files from a share on another machine on the network. Ideally it would be configurable from a page on the RT admin pages so you could set up which cifs share (or something) to use + username + password too I suppose. Having the tftp server on the same box as the DHCP server can be very handy, but I do wonder whether it would fit...
User avatar
thechief
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 12064
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: England, the Centre of Africa
Contact:

Post by thechief » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:19 pm

I am not sure why using cifs requires an ftp server running on the router.
The Chief: :afro: Be sure to read the Firmware FAQ and do a Forum Search before posting!
No support via PM. Ask all questions on the open forum.
User avatar
Shotokan101
RouterTech Team
RouterTech Team
Posts: 4772
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Post by Shotokan101 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:27 pm

thechief wrote:I am not sure why using cifs requires an ftp server running on the router.
Surely it doesn't ? it would be a Samba equivalent wouldn't it ?
Jim

.....I'm Sorry But I Can't Do That Dave.....
Locked