> > > Don't get me wrong - I'll make sure it works on an 8MB machine, but I
> > > won't consider it a showstopper if it is noticeably slower than 2.0.x on
> > > such a machine.
> >
> > Windows have been there, done that. And people decided they didn't like
> > it and went to Linux. History repeats?
>
> Raising the bar has to be done. Windows issn't so much about raising the
> bar, as of doing it _badly_ (and excessively, in the case of WinNT).
>
> Just face facts: if you have a machine from 1985, why do you expect to
> have an OS from 1998? If you can make do with an older machine, you can
> make do with Linux-1.2 or Linux-2.0 (and people _do_).
If you want to run linux on sun4/330, you have no other chance than to
run 2.1.X, simply because port was done in 2.1. time. As linux is
ported to other architectures, and evento obsolete hardware, you can
not always say go 2.0.X.
But - if you make 2.1. few percent slower than 2.0. on such hardware,
it probably will not matter. It should not be few times slower,
however.
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).- 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