Smaller /boot?

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 21:19, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:40:51PM -0400, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> >   Smooge has shed some possible light on the history of why, but I think
> > it would be wise to leave it as is.  At least with the DECPHQ (heh)
> > Alpha, the 64 bit binaries were *much* larger.
> 
> Well, not that much after all.

/me tries to cover for my unfounded claims

:-P

  Heh.  Well, I just remember that it was always tough to fit all of the
Alpha distribution on one CD...back when i386 fit on one CD.
  Regardless...given that it's hard to even *find* a disk these days
less than 36GB, I hardly think 100MB is a big deal.  Still, I wouldn't
be opposed to reducing it a bit.
  Yes, yes, I know, older systems people may want to put FC on may have
smaller disks.  But IIRC, the recommended RAM for FC2 was what, 196MB? 
Kind of makes those older systems more like doorstops these days.  So
sad.  I think Alan Cox was working on (or helping with) a trimmed down
version back in the RHL days for older systems, but I don't know the
status of that.
  Whatever.  I was just throwing my $0.02 in, which now seems to be
valued about $0.005 :-).
-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets