Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:56:58 +0200 (CEST) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty] |
| |
On 20 Jul 1998, Christer Weinigel wrote: > In article <199807192348.TAA04206@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu> allbery@kf8nh.apk.net wrote: > >Folks, increased functionality and/or increased performance almost always > >means increased memory footprint. There's no fix for that yet, as long as > >the kernel itself can't be swapped (and I don't think we want to deal with > >the *nasty* potential deadlocks inherent in swappable kernel memory!). > > > >The difference with respect to Windows is that there's hardly any additional > >functionality or performance to justify the bloat.... > > No additional functionality? Things I can come up with just off the > top of my head:
[ list of new Linux 2.1.x features ]
Wrong :-) He was telling Windows can't justify its bloat...
Greetings,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/ Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium
- 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
| |