Observational humor

[jack-rp9/bkPP+cDYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org (Jack Coats)]

My first server was using kernel 0.97, it took about 23 hours on my 
16MHz '386 without a math co-processor.  16M memory and a huge 320M hard 
drive.  Use it as my in-house network gateway.
No-gui, character only, it was the web server for my house, and 
firewall, used weave dial to dial up my ISP, and UUCP to snag mail from 
the Houston Unix Users Group server.  When I finally got DSL I just 
added a nic and used it that way.  I also got a few (like 3 or 4) small 
news groups too.  I did try to start X on it, and got it to run.  But 
starting X took one hour.
I ran slackware, then moved to RedHat.  Drivers were finikey back then.

Because of where I live I don't have much more bandwidth than then, but 
the display is nice, and
it runs smoother.

Good o'l days?  No.

At the same time, friends with 'fast' '486 machines and mush more memory 
were doing compiles inless than an hour.  One processor.

markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org wrote:
> I'm compiling a custom Linux kernel.  Sort of walking down memory lane as
> it were. Can someone please explain to me how doing this in 2009, with a
> very fast dual core CPU and very fast SATA disks takes LONGER than it did
> back in 1999 (10 years ago)? (rhetorical question)
>
> I mean come on? How much faster are systems today than 10 years ago? Has
> the Linux kernel REALLY grown that much?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>