Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty]

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:48:27 -0300


In message <199807192246.SAA23379@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>, "Albert D. Cahalan"
writ
es:
+-----
| Can't we increase system requirements with time? If not, then we
| must abide by the limits of the original PDP-7 hardware. That means
| we should be able to run Linux in 4096 18-bit words.
+--->8

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....

-- 
brandon s. allbery	[os/2][linux][solaris][japh]	 allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator	     [WAY too many hats]	   allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering
carnegie mellon university			   (bsa@kf8nh is still valid.)

- 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