From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Mar 30 14:22:33 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from lambic.physics.montana.edu (lambic.physics.montana.edu [153.90.192.128])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E2915C43
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:22:31 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu)
Received: from localhost (handy@localhost)
	by lambic.physics.montana.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04585;
	Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:21:58 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:21:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Brian Handy <handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu>
To: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@alcnet.com>
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: support for larger memory
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903301626460.12072-100000@kronos.alcnet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903301521100.3294-100000@lambic.physics.montana.edu>
X-files: The truth is out there
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>  So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in
>order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two
>shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the
expense of those few people who are running > 1GB...



Brian



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message