I’m sure it’s better now, it wasn’t so when QNX had come out.
They also mailed a manual along with the demo disk, and I was amazed that QNX had built-in network bonding, amongst lots of other neat features. At the the time I was using Slackware & the linux kernel version was still 1.x, I don't think bonding came to linux until 2.x?
I'd be honest and say that qnx demo disk had more usability overall than my disk, but one could easily have a usable text only linux bootable disk. Busybox and uclibc already existed back then.
https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/floppy.bin (won't be that useful today due to the ethernet drivers, but it was a 1.44mb floppy)
I wasn’t claiming Linux couldn’t achieve this, merely stating why QNX was mind blowing: because it was way ahead of what was available, not what was possible.
Congrats on your live floppy project, I guess.
my conceptual floppy was less to demonstrate it fitting on a floppy (that was just the carrot), the idea was to show how one could dynamically "rewrite" shared libs to only include the symbols one needed to run the apps and have them work.
argument being, static linking a single binary is smaller than dynamically linking it and including the shared library, but as one adds binaries, the duplicated code will eliminate that size advantage. But shared libraries (especially something like glibc) are large and apps dont always use vast sections of them), so what if one could iterate over all the dynamically linked apps one wanted to include and only include the sections of the shared libs that were needed.
So the project was demonstrating that. In practice, uclibc was smaller than the sliced up glibc (and at least for this project, worked just fine)