[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: kerneld silliness
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Michael K. Johnson wrote:

> Dan writes (as root):
> >Now
> >developers are saying, "well, I don't care about those people with
> >8mb or less, it's very simple, they should just buy more RAM."
> Please, don't attribute Lauri's opinions to real Linux developers.
> I haven't seen that attitude from real Linux developers; the closest
> I've seen is Linus's saying that he has plenty of memory, and
> therefore requesting that those with little memory do plenty of
> testing to make sure Linux is still usable on small systems.

Me neither. I'm using bleeding-edge utilities all the way from the kernel to
the C library and compiler, but my hardware is long overdue for an upgrade.
I'll have a P-120 or better by the end of August, if all goes well, though.

Let's see: 1991 Packard Bell 386/20 with a Cyrix 386->486 upgrade chip (with
a breathtakingly huge 1K cache), providing about 5.3 BogoMIPS, 8MB RAM, 500MB
or so of hard drive, an AWE32 card (unusable in Linux :(. Linux runs fine
for me, save for the lack of PnP support (I couldn't get RedHat's PnP patches
to compile when applied to the kernel), and support for the EMU chip on my
AWE32 (Damn you, Creative Labs).

With the exception of PnP/AWE32 support, Linux blows Windows 95 right off the
map in terms of performance. *AND* it gives more bang for the meg.

About the only thing I have a RAM shortage with is X11. GCC usually fits
comfortably within my 8MB, and the bottleneck is CPU, not RAM.

I must have missed the beginning of this particular thread, but suffice to
say that I haven't seen that attitude from "real" Linux developers either.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.032 / U:1.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site