Speaking of vi, I'm amazed at just how powerful it is. (And I'm not being sarcastic, there's not much I've searched for in regard to its capabilities that I haven't found). No thread drift here...
----- Original Message -----
From: "m roth" <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "centos" <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:08:25 PM
Subject: Re: humor (was Re: OT: systemd Poll)
Andrew Holway wrote:
>>
>> Of course, to be fair, there may have been a *reason* for not doing it
>> that way before....
>>
> Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went
> from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for
> things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server
> platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home
> is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components
> built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017.
>
> * According to perfunctory google search:
> http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-historic-price-of-ram/
a) I was speaking in much more general terms than just software.
b) Stuff built then will run unbelievable fast on modern systems - and no,
in the nineties,
we were not manually swapping.
c) If it fulfils its intended purpose, why would you redefine it as not
fit for that
purpose?
d) And then there stuff that I'm not sure of the purpose... like eclipse,
that
needs 2GB to run... for an editor.
mark "my web pages proudly built in vi!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
