![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Im not sure if anyones noticed but this limitation has been lifted in teh 2.1.x kernels anyway...... On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, B. James Phillippe wrote: > Greetings, > > I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this > problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm > about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people). > > The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+ > memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel, > and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions: > 1.) who's right? 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this > without a bootloader option, and we can't? Seems this is a sizeable flaw > (regardless of the cause) for systems where the memory amount may be > changed dynamically. If this is indeed a kernel limitation, what would be > required to get past it? > > thanks, > -bp > -- > B. James Phillippe . bryan@terran.org > UNIX Software Engineer . http://www.terran.org/~bryan > Member since 1.1.59 . finger:bryan@earth.terran.org > MOTM: Waiting for the DSL to go in :) > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||