From owner-freebsd-hardware  Wed Oct  2 00:23:43 1996
Return-Path: owner-hardware
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA16144
          for hardware-outgoing; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.com (pegasus.com [140.174.243.13])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16139
          for <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pegasus.com (8.6.8/PEGASUS-2.2)
	id VAA23834; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:23:19 -1000
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:23:19 -1000
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Message-Id: <199610020723.VAA23834@pegasus.com>
In-Reply-To: BRETT_GLASS@infoworld.com
       "Re: H/W recommendation" (Oct  1, 10:51pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: H/W recommendation
Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

} 
} But it's a time-tested rule of thumb that, to a first approximation,
} your cache should equal the size of the kernel. (In the case of UNIX, the
} kernel should be trimmed to include only the devices that are actually
} present).
} 

Yikes!

Cache size has a close relationship to kernel size?

Similar to its relationship to the phase of the moon, or the tides.

None at all.

What strange `insights' would move a person to say something so absurd?

If you don't know what you're talking about then please don't talk at all!

`time-tested rule of thumb ...',  that's really rich!


Sorry folks,  I couldn't let this pass ...

Richard