On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, B. James Phillippe wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am aware that passing the "mem=XX" option in LILO overcomes this
> problem; this is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I'm
> about to ask (for you rapid-reply "RTFM" people).
>
> The question is this: I had a debate with someone about the 64MB+
> memory issue with Linux. Their position is that it's a bug in the kernel,
> and mine was that it was an x86 BIOS limitation. I have two questions:
> 1.) who's right? 2.) How is it that Microsoft is able to deal with this
> without a bootloader option, and we can't? Seems this is a sizeable flaw
> (regardless of the cause) for systems where the memory amount may be
> changed dynamically. If this is indeed a kernel limitation, what would be
> required to get past it?
>
> thanks,
> -bp
> --
> B. James Phillippe . bryan@terran.org
> UNIX Software Engineer . http://www.terran.org/~bryan
> Member since 1.1.59 . finger:bryan@earth.terran.org
> MOTM: Waiting for the DSL to go in :)
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/