Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: Tam Richter <tr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:24:32 -0500
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:29:43 -0900, floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote in <87bq8aw7vs.fld@xxxxxxxxxx>:
John Navas <spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run effectively.
Many routers, as one example, run with *any* disk. That
is quite typical of embedded systems. Virtually all
Unix systems can be configured to work without free disk
space.
Not to run meaningful workloads with any sort of performance.
Tell that to all the people running diskless (and often headless) Linux
boxes as firewalls, routers, IPS/IDS/boundary equipment, public kiosks,
thin clients, etc...
Linux runs just fine, and performs even better in many applications,
when it's not encumbered with the relatively dog slow access times of
physical drives. That's one of the major attractions of Linux in fact.
.
- References:
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: Nomen Nescio
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: John McWilliams
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: nospam
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: John McWilliams
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: nospam
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: John Navas
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- From: John Navas
- Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- Prev by Date: Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- Next by Date: Sony H2 Batteries
- Previous by thread: Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- Next by thread: Re: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
