On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:32:49PM -0700, Doug Russell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > FWIW: 3.3R ran (crawled?) in 4Mb. I tried it 2 months ago on a 386SX40 with
> > 4Mb.
> >
> > Compiling a GENERIC kernel was 5 hours or so ;-) That is when I gave up
> > on my idea to
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:32:49PM -0700, Doug Russell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > FWIW: 3.3R ran (crawled?) in 4Mb. I tried it 2 months ago on a 386SX40 with
> > 4Mb.
> >
> > Compiling a GENERIC kernel was 5 hours or so ;-) That is when I gave up
> > on my idea to
Before you ask, I've also tried to use the tapr[*] CF <-> IDE adapter to
see if I could get these systems to boot off a 16MB CF card with no
luck. I even have a mini486 based system from NEC that I bought
surplus that I thought could use the CF card, but no joy. Works great
on all the modern ma
On 2000-Jan-12 07:58:12 +1100, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think that's why IBM has jumpers on some of their disks that limit
>them to 2GB. I can't see why else you would want to take a perfectly
>good 8GB+ disk and use it as a 2GB drive.
The volumes probably mean it's not cost-ef
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brooks Davis writes:
: On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:53:10PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doug
:Russell writes:
: > : See, I knew there was a reason I hung on to all these 1M 30 pin SIMMs. :)
: > : Old 386/40s sure make nice little route
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:53:10PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doug
>Russell writes:
> : See, I knew there was a reason I hung on to all these 1M 30 pin SIMMs. :)
> : Old 386/40s sure make nice little router/modem/whatever boxes. :)
>
> Until their hard disks go s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doug
Russell writes:
: See, I knew there was a reason I hung on to all these 1M 30 pin SIMMs. :)
: Old 386/40s sure make nice little router/modem/whatever boxes. :)
Until their hard disks go south :-(. The biggest problems I have with
them is that they also tend
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> FWIW: 3.3R ran (crawled?) in 4Mb. I tried it 2 months ago on a 386SX40 with
> 4Mb.
>
> Compiling a GENERIC kernel was 5 hours or so ;-) That is when I gave up
> on my idea to 'make buildworld'.
>
> But still impressive, it was stable.
See, I knew ther
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 07:39:40AM +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 04:55:43PM +, George Cox wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > While compiling a kernel today, I noticed that the '-pipe' option to gcc
> > was not being used. Is there any reason for this?
>
> I think this is the
On 11/01 07:39, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> Where 4 MB isn't sufficient anymore with a GENERIC kernel. You need at least
> 6 MB or so to boot, then compile a custom kernel and then, if you are lucky,
> can perhaps run with 4 MB.
Here are the two constituent process of a compilation spotted earlier t
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 04:55:43PM +, George Cox wrote:
> G'day,
>
> While compiling a kernel today, I noticed that the '-pipe' option to gcc
> was not being used. Is there any reason for this?
I think this is the (historical) default, so that people with
only 4-8 MB of RAM don't get into t
G'day,
While compiling a kernel today, I noticed that the '-pipe' option to gcc
was not being used. Is there any reason for this?
best;
gjvc
--
[gjvc]
4.4BSD 4.ever!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
12 matches
Mail list logo
