Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:38:02 -0700 | From | Victor Yodaiken <> | Subject | Re: mempool design |
| |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:04:26PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > If somebody wants such 1% of ram back he can buy another dimm of ram and > plug it into his hardware. I mean such 1% of ram lost is something that > can be solved by throwing a few euros into the hardware (and people buys > gigabyte boxes anyways so they don't need all of the 100% of ram), the > other complexy cannot be solved with a few euros, that can only be > solved with lots braincycles and it would be a maintainance work as > well. Abstraction and layering definitely helps cutting down the > complexity of the code.
I agree with all your arguments up to here. But being able to run Linux in 4Meg or even 8M is important to a very large class of applications. Even if you are concerned mostly about bigger systems, making sure NT remains at a serious disadvantage in the embedded boxes is key because MS will certainly hope to use control of SOHO routers, set-top boxes etc to set "standards" that will improve their competitivity in desktop and beyond. It would be a delicious irony if MS were able to re-use against Linux the "first control low end" strategy that allowed them vaporize the old line UNIXes, but irony is not as satisfying as winning.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |