Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty]
Geert Uytterhoeven (Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:56:58 +0200 (CEST)
On 20 Jul 1998, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> In article <199807192348.TAA04206@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu> allbery@kf8nh.apk.net wrote:
> >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....
>
> No additional functionality? Things I can come up with just off the
> top of my head:
[ list of new Linux 2.1.x features ]
Wrong :-) He was telling Windows can't justify its bloat...
Greetings,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium
-
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