To:	linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
From:	torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty]
Date:	20 Jul 1998 05:50:31 GMT

In article <Pine.LNX.4.00.9807192137050.555-100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk>,
Alex Buell  <alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But as far as I know, Linux was written to work well on a 4MB 386 machine.

No.

Linux was written to work well on MY machine.  At one point that machine
happened to be a 386 with 4MB of RAM.  That time is _long_ gone. 

From what I can tell, Linux-2.1.109 runs fine on a 8MB machine.  I even
have a report from some guy who ran it on a 5MB machine and seemed
happy, although he did change some of the default parameters (at
run-time).  And I've already made the default be what he reported worked
best. 

People seem to think that I don't care.  They are wrong.  I _do_ care. 
But I just don't think it's a showstopper if 2.0.x is faster on a
low-end machine than 2.2.x will be.  I won't even worry about it, in
fact.  I will just make sure that 2.2 is "reasonable" on 8MB, but
"reasonable" has nothing to do with comparing to 2.0.x.

		Linus

-
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