Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 09:07:18 -0700 From: patl@asimov.volant.org To: jiho@sierra.net, terry@cs.weber.edu Cc: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu, freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gnumalloc Message-ID: <9508171607.AA28342@asimov.volant.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
|> > It still amazes me that, although most UNI* machines are single-user |> > workstations, it doesn't occur to people to reconsider the notion that |> > workstations should carry all the baggage that only multi-user servers |> > actually require. This one-size-fits-all approach has limited the |> > appeal of UNI*. (The hardware margins of workstation vendors, |> > however, have attracted a fair amount of envy in the PC clone market, |> > where everyone is counting on Windows 95 to prop things up.) |> |> I don't think people are advocating that, though there is sufficient |> "cruft" in the minimal distribution that could be pared out (ala the |> SCO system component installation paradigm) that it makes me wonder |> sometimes. Actually, it has occurred to someone. Sun is working on a setup where the machine will have the minimum necessary to boot and talk to the network. Everything else it gets from a server and caches locally using the cache filesystem. This solves the problem that a typical un*x workstation only uses about 20% of the files in the distribution; but not necessarily the -same- 20%. They are thinking mostly in terms of laptops and other portable/nomadic machines; but it is a reasonable setup for typical sessile workstations as well. (Note that the cache survives re-boot, so locally cached files are still available even if the machine is not connected to the network.) -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9508171607.AA28342>