Received: from SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA20066; Sat, 30 Sep 95 03:05:14 EDT
Received: from freefall.FreeBSD.ORG by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA26947; Sat, 30 Sep 95 03:04:46 EDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA19427
          ; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:04:00 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id AAA19314
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:02:05 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA19309
          for <hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:02:01 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA15230 for <hackers@freefall>; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:01:57 -0700
To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org
Subject: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation.
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:01:57 -0700
Message-Id: <15228.812444517@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Well folks, we've hit that wall we all knew was there and heading for
us at 120Mph..  The GENERIC kernel has simply gotten too big to fit
within 4MB now and no amount of paring back will deny a basic fact of
life:

	To fit in all the drivers we need to cover a reasonable set
	of devices required at installation-time, we need more than
	4MB and if we didn't need it today, we'd need it tomorrow.

Now some of you will immediately go "ARGH!  What about my custom
router!  What about my 4MB laptop!" and I know how you feel, so please
don't write me 5 page impassioned letters in defense of the last of
the 4MB users.  If it were easy for us to continue to support 4MB
installs you may rest assured that we *would*, and we have in fact
worked very hard up to now to continue doing so for as long as it was
humanly possible.  But we all also knew that we couldn't keep doing it
forever and that *someday* we'd face this decision.  It looks like
someday just got here! :-(

It's not like there isn't precedent.  Even Windows '95, so pointedly
an OS for the masses, apparently will no longer even run in less than
8MB.  We, at least, aren't saying *that*.  It's still perfectly
possible to generate a custom, stripped-down kernel that'll run on a
4MB box (though not very fast), you'll just have to lay your hands on
an extra 4MB to get it through the installation.

I'm sorry about this, and if I could have forstalled this event even
longer without crippling or excessively complicating the installation
for others (and myself) you may rest assured that I'd have done so.
I'm no masochist, and I certainly was never looking forward to the
prospect of having groups of 4MB users throw tomatoes at me for this
kind of decision.  Sometimes that's just life.

Just FYI..  You can at least say I warned you.. :(

					Jordan
