Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • To: Aaron Brice <abrice2 AT cox.net>
  • Cc: Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:51:42 -0700 (PDT)

Aaron Brice said:

> Yes. Absolutely. When I said "Screw people with 386s" I was not
> exaggerating in any way, and what I actually meant is that I'd like to
> see lamer, bloatier programming.
>
> Your comment reminds me of Godwin's Law, "As a Usenet discussion grows
> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
> approaches one." In this mailing list of course a comparison to
> Microsoft being about the same thing..
>
> To clarify my actual point, supporting 386's is nice and all if it
> happens to work out. But if there's any changes that will make X
> compile faster on the Pentium and up CPU's that 99% of the people have,
> and it ruins compatibility with a computer that no one would ever want
> to run a source based distribution on, I say go for it. Optimizing for
> a computer built post-1980 does not mean the code is bloated..

In that case, what we have here is a huge misunderstanding.
Nothing that I spoke of is optimizing specifically for any given
computer. It's a general optimization as has been shown in several
trials.
Using tmpfs has not been shown to be an optimization on any of the
tested platforms. Quite the opposite, in fact. That doesn't sound
like it has anything to do with optimization...It sounds like it's just
a Good Idea(tm).
You might like to read into the Software Engineering principle of
not-so-long-ago that "All The World's A Pentium" and it's fallout
before deciding what exactly isn't worth supporting. The answer will
probably surprise you.

-Phil/CERisE





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page