[ILUG] Linux, Arranmore Island, Co. Donegal

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Niall O Broin wrote:

> Paul - it's clear that your opinion of what constitutes "reasonable
> performance" differs from practically else's. Let's all agree that
> you're wrong^W^W^Wto differ and move on.

Sigh...

As you well know, I had long complained off the infuriating slowness
of RH9 and FC1 on lower end machines. (eg on #linux). I upgraded to
256MB RAM, and that didnt make much difference either.

However, with 2.6 and swappiness tweeked, it's _much_ better. I'm
actually _using_ these machines. I can _assure_ you FC1+2.6 on 256MB
is fine. FC1+2.6 and 128MB is _fine_ for mozilla, perfectly
responsive. Even OpenOffice is responsive (though, it takes a long
time to load though, though in my case some of that is due to it
loaded off an NFS share over wireless).

As far as I can tell you have _not_ used RH9/FC1 with 2.6 on 128MB or
256MB machines. So please dont tell me what kind of performance these
machines would have and whether it would or not be reasonable when
you have (TTBOMK) no experience of using such a setup!

Go try for yourself and be pleasantly surprised.

> Niall

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
Fortune:
I have had my television aerials removed.  It's the moral equivalent
of a prostate operation.
		-- Malcolm Muggeridge