"Jay Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Gervase Markham wrote: > > > Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: > > > >>MacWorld, and MacAddict magazine both say that The more System RAM you > >>have available for UNIX to use the better it runs. In fact they suggest > >>the bare minimum install on any platform for Unix to Run efficiently is > >>256MB. > > > > This is patently false. Cut-down Linux distributions can run in 4Mb for > > a command line, 8Mb for X, on a 486. Normal current Linux distributions > > probably need a 32Mb Pentium, but to suggest they need 256Mb is laughable. > > > >>It can run as low as 128 but not very fast. (The Mac uses a 100% > >>RISC processor, which supposedly is better at using UNIX.) > > > > Processor architecture per se has negligible effect on how well a > > particular operating system runs. The compilers are far more important; > > but there's nothing in the design of Unix that means an implementation > > of it would run faster or better when compiled for a RISC chip. > > My Son interns for RedHat and looking over my shoulder at the moment is > perplexed as to where people come up with these "gems".
Phil is what happens when you get your information on UNIX from Mac-only magazines. It's what MacWorld "determined" after using Darwin BSD for about 5 minutes, and then generalizing to all Unices.
