Received: from SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA21524; Sat, 30 Sep 95 04:20:12 EDT
Received: from freefall.FreeBSD.ORG by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA28093; Sat, 30 Sep 95 04:19:43 EDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id BAA21974
          ; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 01:19:04 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA21896
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 01:15:45 -0700
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA21891
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 01:15:42 -0700
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id BAA18393; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 01:15:22 -0700
From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199509300815.BAA18393@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation.
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 01:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <15228.812444517@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Sep 30, 95 00:01:57 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2349      
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.
for the cdrom there should be an instal floppy with NO NETWORKING
THAT would make it smaller..
i.e. has CDroms and disk support for all known devices
but no networking at all..
that waythey can at least install fromthe cdrom
and make a kernel that suits them..
 you've certainly got enough room on the cdrom for 1 extra floppy image..

I think this is REALLY IMPORTANT
If you don't,
the linux crew are going to have a field day over this one!

> 					Jordan
> 

