From: Victor Yodaiken <yodaiken@fsmlabs.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mempool design
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:38:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011217083802.A25219@hq2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011215134711.A30548@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112152235340.26748-100000@localhost.localdomain> <20011217160426.U2431@athlon.random>
In-Reply-To: <20011217160426.U2431@athlon.random>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:04:26PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> If somebody wants such 1% of ram back he can buy another dimm of ram and
> plug it into his hardware. I mean such 1% of ram lost is something that
> can be solved by throwing a few euros into the hardware (and people buys
> gigabyte boxes anyways so they don't need all of the 100% of ram), the
> other complexy cannot be solved with a few euros, that can only be
> solved with lots braincycles and it would be a maintainance work as
> well. Abstraction and layering definitely helps cutting down the
> complexity of the code.
I agree with all your arguments up to here. But being able to run Linux
in 4Meg or even 8M is important to a very large class of applications.
Even if you are concerned mostly about bigger systems, making sure NT
remains at a serious disadvantage in the embedded boxes is key because
MS will certainly hope to use control of SOHO routers, set-top boxes
etc to set "standards" that will improve their competitivity in desktop
and beyond. It would be a delicious irony if MS were able to re-use
against Linux the "first control low end" strategy that allowed them
vaporize the old line UNIXes, but irony is not as satisfying as winning.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-17 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-15 19:40 mempool design Ingo Molnar
2001-12-15 18:47 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2001-12-15 22:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-12-17 15:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-12-17 15:38 ` Victor Yodaiken [this message]
2001-12-17 16:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-12-17 17:33 ` kernel panic Geoffrey
2001-12-18 16:55 ` mempool design Ingo Molnar
2001-12-18 16:06 ` Victor Yodaiken
2001-12-17 17:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-12-17 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-12-18 0:32 ` Rik van Riel
2001-12-18 15:21 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-15 9:01 Ingo Molnar
2001-12-15 15:39 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011217083802.A25219@hq2 \
--to=yodaiken@fsmlabs.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).