On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 22:09, Post, Mark K wrote: > I don't think any such assumptions were made. Certainly not by me, which is > why I said "or as little virtual storage."
So if we agree that the 256MB probably is an arbitrary value, then we probably both feel that running a Linux machine with less than 256 MB is not such a silly thing that it would be unreasonable to support that. My guess is that this check was left over from something else, and I am just intrigued by whatever that was. If it was meant to be there, it makes me wonder what other things would make the configuration unsupported. Rob
