Dirk Tilger wrote: > On 17.02.2008, at 08:45, Brad Campbell wrote: >> I have an old 586 here still running a >> 2.2.17 kernel. If it ain't broke (and it ain't exposed to the >> outside world or malicious local users >> then why upgrade??) > > To spend hours and hours to discover that 2.6 needs too much memory > for that old a machine. :-P
Actually, on a typical small machine the footprint difference between 2.2 and 2.6 is a couple of hundred K really.. up to a meg depending on what you compile in. That makes a huge difference on an 8 or 16M machine but disappears into the noise when you get upwards of 32M really.. Still.. small machines I tend to use 2.4.. (at least the don't have vmsplice!) -- "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
