Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:34:07 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Bruce A. Locke" <> | Subject | Re: Strange interrupt behaviour |
| |
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Alex Buell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Anyway, looking at the table it is fairly obvious why machines with much > > memory don't tend to have problems.. > > Yes, precisely. From your figures, 64MB machines are just right for 2.1.x > kernels at the moment which is quite reasonable, but if we could get this > fixed for 8MB boxes - 46% attrition rate isn't good - [which most 386s > usually have], then I think everyone would be a lot happier with that. > > I don't know if there are anyone still using 4MB boxes with 2.1.x kernels > - anyone else care to speak up? > > Cheers, > Alex. >
I used to use an old 386 with 4mb of ram with slackware but I recently stopped when I got my pentium machine. I would guess that 1% of linux users still have such an arrangement.
The Linux community seems to take pride in bringing old hardware to life again. With a 2.0.3x kernel I've heard that a 386 makes a nice and very cheap ip masq box and even a router. I would be sad to have that stop or leave ppl hanging with older kernels wide open to the new DoS attack of the month kiddies. As a matter of fact I am making a UMSDOS based installation designed for such systems and I would love to get a 2.2.x kernel in it as soon as possible.
I would encourage those of you to working on kernel memory management, etc. to please keep the 4mb machines supported.
Thanks for your time...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce A. Locke blocke@lizard.org http://www.lizard.org/blocke/ http://www.lizard.org/dragonlinux
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |