Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:21:28PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > What does BitKeeper have to do with this conversation?
> >
> > Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
> > can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy
> > RAM and be happy." Doing so dedicates my system to running a small set
> > of applications, which I am utterly uninterested in.
>
> .. BitKeeper isn't a memory hog, the kernel is bloated. Over 100MB of
> source last I checked. BitKeeper is incredibly good at _NOT_ being
> a memory hog, it uses the page cache as its memory pool. If things
> fit in the cache, they go fast, if they don't, they don't. BitKeeper
> is just like diff in that respect. If you think BitKeeper is a memory
> hog, then you must hate diff too. How about netscape? Don't run that
> either? Give me a break.
>
I wasn't the one who said it, you did. I don't have any evidence either
way.
> .. It's great that you aren't interested in running that set of small
> applications, I'm sure the entire kernel list is happy to learn that.
I believe the same is true for most people, with the major exceptions
being the embedded systems and server farm people.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 07 2001 - 21:00:25 EST