On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:04:26PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> If somebody wants such 1% of ram back he can buy another dimm of ram and
> plug it into his hardware. I mean such 1% of ram lost is something that
> can be solved by throwing a few euros into the hardware (and people buys
> gigabyte boxes anyways so they don't need all of the 100% of ram), the
> other complexy cannot be solved with a few euros, that can only be
> solved with lots braincycles and it would be a maintainance work as
> well. Abstraction and layering definitely helps cutting down the
> complexity of the code.
I agree with all your arguments up to here. But being able to run Linux
in 4Meg or even 8M is important to a very large class of applications.
Even if you are concerned mostly about bigger systems, making sure NT
remains at a serious disadvantage in the embedded boxes is key because
MS will certainly hope to use control of SOHO routers, set-top boxes
etc to set "standards" that will improve their competitivity in desktop
and beyond. It would be a delicious irony if MS were able to re-use
against Linux the "first control low end" strategy that allowed them
vaporize the old line UNIXes, but irony is not as satisfying as winning.
-
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 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:13 EST