On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, David Cantrell wrote: > Any OS, however, that doesn't run well in 128Mb is a broken OS in my > opinion, and that 128Mb should include X. Yes, Mac OS X, I'm criticising > you twice in the same sentence there.
It's only a matter of time, I was still stunned by deadrat when it wouldn't even boot from an install floppy, because it only had 16MB. > > I was quite surprised that 9 ran on sun4m as the first beta was sun4u > > only but the beta refresh doesn't have that restriction. Hurrah once more. > > Shame they dropped Solaris 9/x86 though. > > This must be a definition of "shame" that I'm not familiar with. Solaris > for x86 is nasty. Taking it out and shooting it is more humane than it > deserves. Now, I'm normally pretty harsh in my criticism of x86 bitty- > boxes, but Solaris for x86 is so awful that it defiles even those > abominations. Last I heard, solaris x86 wasn't exactly dropped, more that it wasn't a priority. Maybe when the 64 bit intel stuff becomes widely prevelant, it'll become more of a priority again. There are good reasons for running solaris x86, but they're not my reasons, and are becoming less reasonable each day that linux and the *BSDs exist. the hatter
