From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 28 16:53:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180DF16A4DD; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:53:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61E143D4C; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:53:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD2E5D27; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:53:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id luOo6dtkbzCb; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [199.103.21.238] (pan.codefab.com [199.103.21.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158BB5CE0; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:53:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20060828162852.GA27387@soaustin.net> References: <20060828111223.GD983@zaphod.nitro.dk> <20060828162852.GA27387@soaustin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4FD954C1-2AD4-4753-A4C1-71FC82CC2A82@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:53:49 -0400 To: Mark Linimon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, Nikolas Britton , "Simon L.Nielsen" Subject: Re: FreeBSD's minimum memory requirements. X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:53:56 -0000 On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > My own preference would be to either see it in the Handbook, or as a > separate (short) article. Turning the email into a short article would be OK by me; otherwise, where would it go into the Handbook, section 2.10? Earlier? Regardless, I also think FAQ 3.4 & 3.5 should be updated to reflect reality. :-) -- -Chuck