On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Thank heavens! 1.1 had terrible memory management. 1.2 (REX) is _much_
> > > > better.
> > > The memory management issue mentioned here with 1.1 may explain some
> > > slowness with my (1.1) machines.
> > I do not get the point! Memory management is the job of the kernel.
> > How does it depend on the distribution?
> Well, if you upgrade your system as a distribution, rather than piece-meal,
> on-the-fly, method (via dftp), it sure does make sense that a "distribution"
> influences memory management issues. I choose to wait until a stable
> distribution has been declared and upgrade my entire system in one sitting.
> That way, I _know_ that all the necessary packages have been upgraded.
> Unlike another gentleman on this list who upgraded the kernel, but did not
> upgrade the libc5 module and could not understand why his machine was slow.
> 8-)
Sorry I still do not get the point. Debian 1.1 never seemed to be slow to
me compared to any other distribution. Of course any broken setup you
might get by unstable/partial updates might slow down your machine to any
degree. But this still means that contradictionary to the above statement
1.1 was not slow.
Yours
-- martin
// Martin Konold, Muenzgasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany //
// Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] //
Linux - because reboots are for hardware upgrades
-- Edwin Huffstutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
Just go ahead and write your own multitasking multiuser os !
Worked for me all the times.
-- Linus Torvalds --
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
