Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
  • To: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • Cc: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:58:01 -0500 (CDT)


On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ wrote:
> Casey Harkins said:
>
> > I think these things *should* happen!
>
> It's nice to know that you've ignored the idea of bootstrapping in
> terms of an installation. I'm sure that Our Fathers (Ritchie,
> Kernighan, and Thompson) are soundly shaking their heads at your
> short-sightedness and ignorance of some of their pioneering work with
> C and Unix.
> The only time that binaries should be compiled to anything other
> than the lowest common denominator is when they aren't meant to be
> distributed. Keep your audience large and your binaries personalized
> and fast. That is the One True Path. All other roads lead to
> disaster.


First let me clarify my statement, I'm arguing that the addition of
instructions to make better use of hardware is a good thing (should
happen).

With this particular distribution, the isos should be compiled for the
lowest common denominator which satisfies your bootstrapping argument.
All software built on an individual machine is not meant for distribution,
and should take advantage of additional instructions.

For anyone to shake their head at doing 4 additions for the price of 1 is
ignorance. I'm sure K&R&T would agree.

-casey





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page