The great thing about Linux is that it's very scalable. I run it at work on a server with 8 cores and 8GB RAM, and it takes full advantage of that machine, yet I also have a version at home called DSL (Damn Small Linux) that fits on, boots and runs from a 512MB flash drive. The kernel is only about 1.5MB, which may not be the 100 or so K of IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM, but certainly a tiny enough file by today's standards. I also cut my teeth on DOS starting with 3.3 and really appreciate the Linux way of doing things as it gives you that kind of complete control over your system that you had in DOS, only with mainframe capabilities. You can configure Linux to be as small or large as you like.
________________________________ From: Dos-Man 64 <[email protected]> To: Linux Users Group <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:54:24 AM Subject: [lug:14799] Re: Is there a non-unicode Linux version? On Jul 23, 7:21 am, [email protected] wrote: > Must admit this is an unusual phobia. An Ansi only OS is a dying legacy. > Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry > > > Just a preference. I come from the DOS/3.1/95/98 world. They are all "dying". In fact, they're dead. They're also efficient and small. Unicode is bloat. It slows down string handling and wastes memory, often times in situations where the end user never uses anything but English anyway. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
