Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jacob L. Leifman
Date: Monday, June 7, 2010 - 4:35 pm

My first programming primer (Fortran ... them days) had a very concise 
delineation of the difference between neat programming and the much 
more common alternative -- "given a big enough engine, even brick will 
fly". I never cared for the american "muscle" cars but was always 
fascinated with the slick european sports cars. I guess that is the 
same attraction I have for OpenBSD. I also find that the currently 
popular obsession with CPU cores, GHz and GBs is nothing more than the 
computer version of the muscle car. (yes, I am aware that there are 
specialized applications that do require the use of a monster-sized 
dump truck with an engine to match, but in reality how many places have 
a genuine need of a database that even with fully optimized design 
requires that much physical RAM?)

On 8 Jun 2010 at 1:43, Dexter Tomisson wrote:

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Dexter Tomisson, (Mon Jun 7, 11:52 am)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Bret S. Lambert, (Mon Jun 7, 12:12 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Brad Tilley, (Mon Jun 7, 12:47 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Dexter Tomisson, (Mon Jun 7, 3:43 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Jacob L. Leifman, (Mon Jun 7, 4:35 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Johan Beisser, (Mon Jun 7, 5:40 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Jason Beaudoin, (Mon Jun 7, 5:58 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Adam M. Dutko, (Mon Jun 7, 6:15 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Gonzalo Rodriguez, (Mon Jun 7, 7:02 pm)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?, Helmut Schneider, (Tue Jun 8, 12:16 pm)