Re: [RULE] RULE minimum hw requirements

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 10:32 2/20/2004, you wrote:
> Almost surely yes. However, the RULE minimum target is a moving one,
> and it is really pragmatic. 386, 12/16 are not mystical numbers to
> defend blindly. They basically mean "what is the oldest, more limited
> and crappiest hw *still* *working* and being donated that, with a
> reasonable amount of effort, common sense and good will can be
> reactivated, to delay expense and pollution?".

And an interesting corollary to keep in mind is: at what point do we 
reasonably expect to drop 386 and move the minimum to 486. Since things 
like HD/RAM and the whole platform changes, that one evolutionary step will 
reduce somewhat the demands of supporting stuff that has by then become 
truly ancient. But when will "then" be?

Not advocating a sooner or later here, just wondering. Since we're being 
mystical, of course.


--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
address@hidden
http://www.simpaticus.com