Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 22:46:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao <taob@io.org> To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.951002223944.14434O-100000@trepan.io.org> In-Reply-To: <199510021727.NAA10736@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, dennis wrote:
>
> Thats the point. Smaller is better for everyone.
First you say FreeBSD would be catering to idiots with a small
install kernel image, now you're saying that it would be better for
everyone. Are you then implying that we're all idiots? ;-)
> Is it OK to write bad code because 'processors are fast" and "memory
> is cheap"?
So you're saying that "small is beautiful" if it is the result of
efficient code, not lack of functionality. A couple years ago, I
simply would not have believed a decent OS could not fit in under 2
megs of RAM (coming from the Apple II world does that to you). Now I
realize that companies with marketable products don't have the luxury
of hiring programmers to write algorithms in hand-tuned assembler for
maximum performance.
I don't think the "more hardware is better" mentality is at work
here in the FreeBSD camp. We are simply caught in a bad situation
where there isn't enough time to implement a good and proper solution
(loadable device drivers, on-disk filesystem, what have you), so an
alternative must be found. The hack-and-slash solution of deleting
unneeded drivers isn't my favourite method either, but I'd rather have
that than god-knows how many users between now and 2.2 turned away
because they couldn't even install the damn thing.
--
Brian Tao <taob@io.org>
System Administrator, Internex Online Inc.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.951002223944.14434O-100000>