I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this
problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm
about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people).
The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+
memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel,
and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions:
1.) who's right? 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this
without a bootloader option, and we can't? Seems this is a sizeable flaw
(regardless of the cause) for systems where the memory amount may be
changed dynamically. If this is indeed a kernel limitation, what would be
required to get past it?
thanks,
-bp
-- B. James Phillippe . bryan@terran.org UNIX Software Engineer . http://www.terran.org/~bryan Member since 1.1.59 . finger:bryan@earth.terran.org MOTM: Waiting for the DSL to go in :)
- 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.tux.org/lkml/