Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:02:24 -0400 (EDT) | From | yuri mironoff <> | Subject | Re: "obsolete" hardware |
| |
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
> > I'm looking forward to the day when my venerable old 386 can be > retired from running MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 to the freedom of running > Linux. If by the time I do that I'm expected to bleed because > Linux will then only working on cutting edge stuff then I'll not > remain a Linux supporter for long. > > There's a difference between wanting and having. The real beauty of > Linux, for me and I suspect others, is that we can run multi-user > services/servers on hardware that cannot run Windows 3.1 let alone > run Windows 95.
Of course there is another way of looking at this. There are lots of current and upcoming applications that do require lots of horsepower. By the same token there are fewer and fewer (if any) applications being written that target a 486 (let alone a 386) as a minimum requirement. Try running anything X/Motif based and you'll see what I mean. If Linux developers concentrate their attention on trying to be compatible with obsolete hardware as opposed to taking advantage of cutting edge features other operating systems will overtake Linux by running slower on faster hardware - not exactly a pretty picture.
Bottom line is I'd rather say "Linux runs faster on a quad P7" than "Linux still runs on my 2mb 386" a year from now. A well executed design means nothing unless it performs. Nothing PERFORMS on a 386. Lets not loose sight of our goals here for the sake of keeping backward compatibility.
Take as a warning the longevity of the PC bus architecture. Would you care to guess why we're still stuck with it? Backward compatibility. Its a dirty word.
Regards,
Y.
P.S. I skipped a more than a couple of lunches to upgrade to my first Pentium. Not that many really - but it was definitely worth it. ;)
| |