Since Most Everythings's right with SCO Can we make it smaller?

[neal at mnopltd.UUCP]

->marc at jahangir.UUCP (Marc Rossner) writes:
->>I thought that the advantage of Xenix was that it was supposed to be tiny.
->>I also thought that I had a rather massive kernel on my ISC 2.2.  My
->>kernel is 750K.  Are you sure you have your numbers right?
->
->Reading this thread, I can't help but to wonder:  why worry about
->kernel size, these days?  I've long been one to complain about the fact
->that software seems to get larger in direct proportion to the decrease
->in memory costs, and often slower due to its increasing complexity, but
->in the case of a reasonably well-performing O/S with lots of features,
->why worry so much about kernel size?
->
->Add another megabyte to the system and the problem will go away.  Seems
->a fairly simple and economical solution.  Even at 1-2Mb, kernels remain
->significantly smaller than most applications.  (As compared to ten
->years ago on mainframe computers, when a kernel was typically many
->times larger than an application.)
->
->-rich
->

Why worry indeed: because on this box (NCR 3445) another MB costs $4000!
Unfortunate result of building a box with 16mb memory boards with 
surface mount chips.  We are sitting at 16mb now and would rather make it
work if possible.

BUT, if it were not for that brick wall I would tend to agree with you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Rhodes                       MNOP Ltd                     (404)- 972-5430
President                Lilburn (atlanta) GA 30247             Fax:  978-4741
                             emory!mnopltd!neal 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------